Finally been able to log on at an actual computer...
First time I've used the full site so apologies if the links/quotes look weird. All the quotes below are from Huggy (couldn't work out how to add the 'Huggy said' bits).
As other posters have said, the date on the site shows when the page was revised. The start of the article refers to Bowman as if he were alive, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the article in the main was published before his death, and later updated to reflect his death. Even if it wasn’t, and it was prompted by his death, I don’t really see your point, other than it being a bit of a shitty thing to do. I know very little about that website and don’t pretend to vouch for it, which is why I tried to corroborate what it said from other sources. The only reason I went with that one was it was pretty much the only result from Google about Bowman (in the first five or six pages – and I’m not invested in the discussion to look much further than that) that wasn’t naturalist food propaganda.
I’m not sure if you have another source or not, or if the second link you posted is what you are referring to as your corroborated material, but all that says is that the adverts claiming to cure aids is what prompted Abrams to call for his arrest, and not that he was actually charged with false advertising.
If he was, and found innocent (although this would not in itself mean that the cure was proven) then I would agree that would be most newsworthy, far more newsworthy than just being found innocent of dispensing/practicing medicine without a licence. Which is why it is strange that the report mentions the dispensing/practicing medicine verdict, but not the false advertisement one. I surmise that is because he was not actually charged with false advertisement.
As to why then the journalist found the decision ‘historical’, I don’t have a great knowledge of legal decisions in this are in the US. Perhaps there was something genuinely historical about being cleared of dispensing/practicing medicine, or perhaps it was just the journalists way of trying to make his article more interesting.
The article says they testified to their improved health. Improved health =/= cured of cancer or aids. From looking at what is purported to be Bowmans diet plan, although I’m not a nutritionist it looks to be a broadly healthy diet, so I’m not really surprised that people could improve their health by following it.
You realise that works both ways, right. If Bowman had a proven cure, why did he consent?
From reading what little there is on the web, and I acknowledge that this is unsubstantiated, there seems to be a bit of doubt over whether Bowman was actually falsely advertising that his products provided a cure, or whether he was just using soundbites from satisfied patients. If that were to be the case I could understand if the authorities, having already shown to be overzealous in their criminal prosecution, opting to go for a consent agreement rather than proceed through the civil court. I can’t understand, had the ‘cure’ really been proven in criminal court as you claimed, why Bowman would have simply agreed to stop making the claims.
Agreed, critical thinking skills come in very handy sometimes, you might like to try it!
BTW you didn’t answer this..
Perhaps you in turn can link to scientific/medical studies that demonstrate that his 'treatment' actually cured anything.
First time I've used the full site so apologies if the links/quotes look weird. All the quotes below are from Huggy (couldn't work out how to add the 'Huggy said' bits).
Quote:I thought that was the link you were referring to, don't you find it the least bit strange that this website is calling him a quack just after he dies and can't defend himself?
As other posters have said, the date on the site shows when the page was revised. The start of the article refers to Bowman as if he were alive, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the article in the main was published before his death, and later updated to reflect his death. Even if it wasn’t, and it was prompted by his death, I don’t really see your point, other than it being a bit of a shitty thing to do. I know very little about that website and don’t pretend to vouch for it, which is why I tried to corroborate what it said from other sources. The only reason I went with that one was it was pretty much the only result from Google about Bowman (in the first five or six pages – and I’m not invested in the discussion to look much further than that) that wasn’t naturalist food propaganda.
Quote:The newspaper article that you linked (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ytr...edit?hl=en) states
"In a historical decision in Brooklyn Supreme Court Monday, a jury of six men and six women found Alfredo Bowman not guilty on two counts of practicing medicine without a license."
Why would someone being found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license be referred to as a " historical decision? Based on sources that I found corroborated by same Journalist from the aforementioned article, he was charged with one count of false advertisement and one count of practicing medicine without a license;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e7xh...edit?hl=en
On February 10, 1987, Attorney General Robert Abrams called for the arrest of Wilfredo Bowman, popularly known as Dr. Sebi following claims he made in the AmNews and the Village Voice that he could cure AIDS.
Beating the count of false advertisement, would indeed make for an historic decision...
I’m not sure if you have another source or not, or if the second link you posted is what you are referring to as your corroborated material, but all that says is that the adverts claiming to cure aids is what prompted Abrams to call for his arrest, and not that he was actually charged with false advertising.
If he was, and found innocent (although this would not in itself mean that the cure was proven) then I would agree that would be most newsworthy, far more newsworthy than just being found innocent of dispensing/practicing medicine without a licence. Which is why it is strange that the report mentions the dispensing/practicing medicine verdict, but not the false advertisement one. I surmise that is because he was not actually charged with false advertisement.
As to why then the journalist found the decision ‘historical’, I don’t have a great knowledge of legal decisions in this are in the US. Perhaps there was something genuinely historical about being cleared of dispensing/practicing medicine, or perhaps it was just the journalists way of trying to make his article more interesting.
Quote:Furthermore the article states:
Harry Dickson, Roger Marshall, Naimah Fuller, Zadia Ife and Karen Selby, witnesses for the defense, unequivocally testified to their improved health as a result of USHA’s dietary program.
*emphasis mine*
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nequivocal
unequivocal
adjective
Leaving no doubt; unambiguous.
Dr. Sebi speaking of the case, stating he had to provide proof of healing in court.
The article says they testified to their improved health. Improved health =/= cured of cancer or aids. From looking at what is purported to be Bowmans diet plan, although I’m not a nutritionist it looks to be a broadly healthy diet, so I’m not really surprised that people could improve their health by following it.
Quote:Yes Sebi was sued in a CIVIL case (which I don't suppose I have to tell you requires far less evidence than a criminal case) and even then the suit was not successful as you claim.
From your other link: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/sebi/nyag_testimony.pdf (Which is a congressional hearing, not a court case) on page 108 it states:
A particularly glaring example of unsubstantiated therapeutic claims made for herbal supplements occurred a few years ago when the USHA Herbal Research Institute, run by a self-styled nutritionist calling himself "Dr. Sebi," advertised in the Village Voice and the Amsterdam News that "AIDS HAS BEEN CURED" by USHA and that they also specialize in cures for Leukemia, sickle cell anemia, herpes, lupus and other diseases. For an initial fee of $500 and $80 for each additional visit, patients were told they could be cured of AIDS and other diseases. The "cures" consisted of various herbal products, for each of which USHA made therapeutic claims. Eva Therapeutic Salve, for example, was referred to in USHA's brochure as . . .
"very effective on major skin problems, in prenatal use, against poor circulation, cancer, cysts, hemorrhoids and arthritis."
In fact, these claims were false. Our office filed suit against USHA and entered a consent agreement under which USHA can no longer make therapeutic claims for any of its products"
A consent agreement means there was a settlement with no admission of guilt or liability between the two parties. Sebi only had to pay out 900 dollars in court fees, so how do you figure the suit was a success?
Furthermore If the claims were false as Assistant Attorney General stated, why couldn't they get a ruling IN A CIVIL COURT, where the burden of proof is much more lenient?
You realise that works both ways, right. If Bowman had a proven cure, why did he consent?
From reading what little there is on the web, and I acknowledge that this is unsubstantiated, there seems to be a bit of doubt over whether Bowman was actually falsely advertising that his products provided a cure, or whether he was just using soundbites from satisfied patients. If that were to be the case I could understand if the authorities, having already shown to be overzealous in their criminal prosecution, opting to go for a consent agreement rather than proceed through the civil court. I can’t understand, had the ‘cure’ really been proven in criminal court as you claimed, why Bowman would have simply agreed to stop making the claims.
Quote:This is where you need to use those critical thinking skills you atheists claim you have...
Agreed, critical thinking skills come in very handy sometimes, you might like to try it!
BTW you didn’t answer this..
Perhaps you in turn can link to scientific/medical studies that demonstrate that his 'treatment' actually cured anything.
