keavyscorner.com

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Jazspeak » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:00 am

@ surf-safe

<quote user="surf-safe">
"Why do I write about viral marketing when you don't read it?
Why does the OP need a FDA Statement when he don't want it to sell it as a cure called MMS?
Why is the FDA focussing on the brand "MMS" an not on "Clorox"?
"
[/quote]

I did read your suggestion of viral marketing but I don't agree that it applies to the OP site since the OP site clearly does not make the claims of the many other sites selling the product. The OP site needed to include the statement regarding the lack of FDA approval because everyone (me included) previously took the owner to task for failing to make it clear in his old site format.

I have no idea why the FDA focusses on the advertising of one brand over another, except to reiterate IssView's observations that some FDA reports and restrictions can seem rather bizarre (and no less bizarre than some UK Health and Safety Executive reports and restrictions).

<quote user="surf-safe">
"Home" not "Stomach".
[/quote]

Oh come off it, do you really think that a home is capable of being concerned about its health? The claims of a healthier home point to using bleach to prevent disease in human inhabitants. So it would seem that you don't mind bleach manufacturers claiming that using their products can prevent disease. I have even seen an advert for a well-known brand of bleach in the UK, in which it is claimed that using the product can prevent people catching the flu virus without mentioning that the flu virus is usually transmitted from human to human in an airborne form.

Before you, or anyone else, get the idea that I am defending the medical claims of MMS, let me make it clear that I am not. I am sceptical of any and all claims of the miraculous.

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Jazspeak » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:22 am

@ Kaffeetante

<quote user="kaffeetante">
"Please read the first line of my last post. Thanks."
[/quote]

I did read that line, and I do appreciate that English is not your first language. However, your use of English is generally very good and in this instance I don't think that anyone has misunderstood you.

<quote user="kaffeetante">
"Never do a voting because of "ethical issues"? Never? Never give a comment like "a site of a well known member of wot"? Never?"
[/quote]

I very rarely use the Ethical Issues comment category, and I had to go back through a lot of my scorecard comments to find [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/capita.co.uk/comment-25239022 t=_self]an example here[/url]. That comment relates to, and clearly states, that employees of that particular company are cold-calling salespeople who claim to be from one organisation when they are in fact from another. Such behaviour would seem to be legal but I think that such behaviour is very unethical.

On the couple of occasions that I have mentioned that the site is "of a well known member of wot" then that is mentioned because it is factually accurate.

Please note that I do not vote up or down any Ethical Issues comments because ethics are subject to socio-cultural backgrounds and influences. My main gripe about some of the scorecard comments is the use of the Phishing or other scams category to describe a site that is neither phishing nor scamming. In the case of the OP site I have seen no evidence of phishing and I am convinced that the site will provide any goods bought from the site, which means that I see no reason to accuse the site of scamming. If you get the product that you knowingly pay for then you haven't been scammed.

Kaffeetante
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:11 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Kaffeetante » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:48 am

<quote user="jazspeak">
@ Kaffeetante



I did read that line, and I do appreciate that English is not your first language. However, your use of English is generally very good and in this instance I don't think that anyone has misunderstood you.



I very rarely use the Ethical Issues comment category, and I had to go back through a lot of my scorecard comments to find [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/capita.co.uk/comment-25239022 t=_self]an example here[/url]. That comment relates to, and clearly states, that employees of that particular company are cold-calling salespeople who claim to be from one organisation when they are in fact from another. Such behaviour would seem to be legal but I think that such behaviour is very unethical.

On the couple of occasions that I have mentioned that the site is "of a well known member of wot" then that is mentioned because it is factually accurate.

Please note that I do not vote up or down any Ethical Issues comments because ethics are subject to socio-cultural backgrounds and influences. My main gripe about some of the scorecard comments is the use of the Phishing or other scams category to describe a site that is neither phishing or scamming. In the case of the OP site I have seen no evidence of phishing and I am convinced that the site will provide any goods bought from the site, which means that I see no reason to accuse the site of scamming. If you get the product that you knowingly pay for then you haven't been scammed.
[/quote]

Your post is too funny, so I have to answer - but it will be a litte bit off topic and - I promise - really my last post here in this thread.

I found a very funny voting from you:
As with all Faith Schools there is the ethical issue of exclusivity, which is to say that pupils and parents of other religions are treated less well than those of the primary religion. "
st-philiphoward.w-sussex.sch.uk

and ...hmmm...what should I say for another school:
The site provides good information about the school and its aims and objectives. There is no malware on the site, there is no hateful or violent content, and the site is not phishing or any other sort of scam.

Whilst some people might disagree with the ethos of the school, there is no reason to consider the site unsafe or untrustworthy. "
emil-molt-schule.de


I found this really funny, telling others don't rate a site bad beause of it's "ethos" and doing exactly that way by another school (and antrophosophic schools have a very extrem "ethos"). Nice!

And I saw, that you vote to your own site and give three comments, one of them beeing a "customer"...hmmmm...

Oh, and I've found a lot more sites - but it's off topic. I only wan't to show (or better demonstrate?) you something, it's always a lie if anybody says, that the way he/she rates, give comments or statements is a real objective way. In the rating of every people you can find things like, personal experience, the education they get, the things they believe on or the things they wan't to believe, you'll find the influence of the personal way of living, from the family and the friends ...and...many, many things like this. Humans can't be objektive - they are always subjectiv - and so, your ratings also subjective.
You give a lot of gambling sites negative votes (I share your voting in this cases), but, if you are a gambler, you'll give the same sites positive votes and you'll have another meaning to the sites.

So, have a nice sunday and a nice discussion here in this thread. :D


Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Jazspeak » Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:07 pm

@ Kaffeetante

<quote user="kaffeetante">
"st-philiphoward.w-sussex.sch.uk"
[/quote]

My daughter attended this Roman Catholic school, so I was commenting from direct personal experience. Since neither my daughter nor I are Catholics, and we were both treated in the way that I described, then my comment is factually accurate.


<quote user="kaffeetante">
"emil-molt-schule.de"
[/quote]

You had to go back a few years to find that one, and my comment was (is) not in the Ethical Issues category. If you read the forum thread that was associated with that site then you might have a better understanding of my objections to the way that some others rated and commented.


<quote user="kaffeetante">
"And I saw, that you vote to your own site and give three comments, one of them beeing a "customer"...hmmmm..."
[/quote]

As with any other WOT member, I am entitled to leave up to three comments on any scorecard, including my own. I have not claimed to be a customer vis-a-vis my own site. I used the Good Customer Experience category to make the mission statement that my site aims to provide a good customer experience. Clearly the agreements with that comment show that I have succeeded in fulfilling that mission statement.


<quote user="kaffeetante">
"Oh, and I've found a lot more sites - but it's off topic."
[/quote]

Given that I have more than seven thousand ratings to my net-name then there are bound to be a lot comments that you disagree with, especially considering that you are so intent on defending your biased ratings and comments.

Keavs
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:38 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Keavs » Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:04 pm

Guys,
This really wasn't my intention in posting for a site review..
As I said, I don't expect a green rating.

I posted a comment awhile back.
It says "contains Chlorine Dioxide application chart"
I have 18 disagrees. Ok ...the site does contain a chart, so the people just disagreed arbitrarily.

This mindset is apparent in abundance throughout the world.
Since Chlorine Dioxide -ClO2 (MMS) is the topic......

The FDA has many reports on the safety and effacicy of ClO2.

It IS used as a pulp bleach at concentrations over 200,000 parts per million (ppm)
MMS is bottled at 224000 ppm so it is in effect the same as the pulp bleach in the bottle.
This is as dangerous as most bleach and household products under the kitchen sink. I agree with this.

At 200 ppm and below, it is used to effectively treat water, surfaces, vegetables, meat, and tableware, animal habitats, just a myriad of uses....

MMS is used by adding 3 drops ( at 45 drops per milliter) to 6 oz of water
That's 1/2700 of the total, or about 82 ppm. If you read the FDA report, it seems you use it at strength, but this simply isn't the case.
The report contradicts other FDA and EPA reports on the same chemical.

Other products that use the same chemical for animal and human use.

Dioxicare™
Katadyn Micropur™ Purification Tablets
Potable Aqua™ Water Purification Tablets
go2™
CloSYS™ Chlorine Dioxide Mouthwash
DioxiRinse™

There are lots more.

Dupont makes a solution stronger than MMS,
so does
Lenntech
Oxychem


NP0001 Clinical trial taking place right now.
NP0001 is a chlorite solution. Doctors are injecting it into people with ALS disease.
So far uncurable... showing promising results. FDA Approved for INJECTION.

I don't sell internationally, so that is an irrelevant and poor reason to rate a foreign site.
But you are wrong, Sodium Chlorite solution itself is not illegal in Germany, they are actually a HUGE user of it in food processing.

Galileo was CONDEMNED for saying the world is not the center of the universe. Many inventions and discoveries were met with ridicule, but panned out in the end.
If some people had their way we would still be living in caves, penicillin would be evil, tomatoes would be poisonous.

Find me one documented case of anyone hurt by what I sell.... just one.
And before you pull out tyhe Sylvia Fink death story from a couple drops..... better look up the autopsy results that came out.
Had nothing to do with ClO2.

All that being said, Sami.... sorry for starting this again, it really wasn't my intention, and after this I'm done except for small comments to individuals. By all means rate as you see fit. My customers could give a good 2 figs for what most people think anyway.

Comments on the site itself would be appreciated.

I'm like a mom with an ugly baby, and need someone to point out the faults. I trust you guys to know what you are talking about.

@Jazzspeak, ISSViews, G7W, Mentalist, Steven, Leo..... and some others. ( you too surf-safe)
Thanks guys, and I appreciate all the help and patience all of you have shown to me over the last year.

Infinite Jest
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:03 am

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Infinite Jest » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:01 pm

Bah.
MMS, Colloidal Silver, DMSO, Detox, ... are BRANDS and all unhealthy and at best just useless.

But let's stick with MMS. The only reason one buys MMS is to ingest it. All arguments like: "it's just bleach and others sell bleach too" are fallacious.

Were the OP honest, he would remove the term MMS from his site. Why? Because nobody buys MMS when he want's to bleach "whatever" with it. No, it is advertised, sold and bought to be ingested.

Btw.: He was asked months ago to do that:
http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/8172-the-humble-bishop-jim-and-his-elixir-of-life?comment=52432#comment-52432

But, of course, he doesn't want to do that. Because people are looking for MMS, they are not looking for bleach in tiny bottles. It's quite a difference in profit margins...

He had also has created his own church to get protection from FDA through it:
http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/8446-request-and-kina-long-post?comment=53325#comment-53325

You 've got to be kidding me, even the church homepage is still there:
http://ichw.org/003.html

"In 2003 our Pastor Rev. Stephen Pardee gained ordination in the Universal Ministries Church. His interest in Health had led him to believe in the Truth that Vaccinations are Evil and an Affront to our Creator, our Bodies, and Our Children. He had discovered that no Churches in his area offered any protection from this forced procedure, and his grandchild could not attend school without it. He started the Church as a means of Sanctuary from forced procedures, and to educate others. The fellowship grew into a small meeting of regular members."

Sanctuary from Government Involvement in their personal Health decsisions.

Well, praise the lord!

Btw.: Even his last post fits perfectly into the big picture: "I am suppressed, Galileo was too, and in the end he was right. And so am I and MMS is safe to ingest. "
Well, in my experience one thing is certain: If somebody has to play the Galileo card, he is damn wrong...

Keavs
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:38 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Keavs » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:27 pm

That's never been a secret dude, and has been rehashed here dozens of times.
The church is so I don't have to have my kids and grandkids vaccinated.

I have seen 2 healthy kids in my life reduced to unfunctioning vegetables because they were vaccinated.


Even the US Govt admits that vaccinations cause autism.

I use MMS because thats the search term people use... Is that so hard to understand.


Rate my site dude, and leave the personal sh#t out of it. WOT is not about attacking people now too is it.


Grow up, and do research before you spout nonsense and drag up common knowledge like you made a big discovery.........

And I never said I was suppressed, I have a site up and running, how the hell can I claim suppression?


Easy to force transparency from site owners, while you make personal attacks thru your anonymity, (which you can justify as necessary, while no one else has a right).

Play the Galileo card? WTF are you talking about... it was relevant, and simply the first example I thought of..... want more?

The church is totally unaffiliated with the site.
My family is the only members. There is no forum or anything.

It's not linked to or from my site, or any other site that I know of.

Are any churches you don't agree with also being rated down by you.... probably, you strike me as a blinders on kind of guy.
That's cool tho....

Piss off, rate my site, discuss my site, and keep my personal life and my beliefs out of it.

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Jazspeak » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:24 pm

<quote user="keavs">
"Piss off, rate my site, discuss my site, and keep my personal life and my beliefs out of it."
[/quote]

Well said.

OT - whilst on the subject of prejudice, did anyone else notice that the recently unveiled statue of Martin Luther King is carved from white stone? Oh, the irony.

Guest

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Guest » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:13 am

<quote user="mentalist3d">
Alcohol is still used as a medicine, especially in Scotland. If you have a cold, you heat up a glass of whisky and add sugar. Its called a Hot Toddy and it is used as a cure for the flu and cold. I have also seen whisky sold as medicine (through advertising) on this basis.
[/quote]

Echo on that @mentalist3d
like most of us use cough syrups in Cough but all cough syrup contains alcohol.
like one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corex
have a look at #Supply
Corex very popular in cough medicine contains a very high composition of alcohol.

@keavs
Safe website!
Rated !

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: keavyscorner.com

Post by Jazspeak » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:50 am

<quote user="@anonymouse">
"cough syrup contains alcohol."
[/quote]

Not forgetting that some cough mixtures contain opiates such as heroin, morphine, and/or codeine. See [url=http://www.boots.com/wcsstore/cmsassets/Boots/Content/Products/Diarrhoea%20-%20CAT:%20A00000527/10075295.P/JCB%20Leaflet.pdf t=_self]here[/url] for a well-known example (note the instruction "Avoid drinking alcohol while taking this medicine.").

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests