(November 8, 2016 at 2:04 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(November 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: [edit]Repost of the link: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/sebi.html
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?
[edit]
Regarding the quackwatch link: You do understand what "revised means" or is there a reading comprehension issue? Look at the bottom of the page. This guy has been on the quackwatch radar for years. Why didn't he (or anyone) defend himself then? Quackwatch allows people to post opposing views.
Take a look here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...s1987.html
Note that the post is from 2003.
Lame assertion.
The point still stands.
Why even revise the article after the man dies, what new information has been released that couldn't have been garnered in 1988? That article references the same news articles we've been discussing.
Furthermore the website states
Quote:At a 1993 Congressional hearing, Shirley Stark, who headed the NYAG's Consumer Fraud Section, indicated that there was a successful civil case against his company.
it insinuates that Sebi lost the civil case which is false for reasons I've already explained.