From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:25:10 -0500, Bill Lucy  wrote:

> In article , gaw{at}sover.net
> says...
>> > As far as I can see from the URL I quoted, it's been sneered at by
>> those
>> > I
>> > would expectto sneer at it, but not even a substantive attack has been
>> > mounted on it.  Note how keen Bliar has been to accept other studies
>> > using
>> > the same methodology.  And the Lancet has not retracted, as it always
>> > does
>> > when a story is proven false.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> A google for LANCET CASUALTIES FLAWED produces 26,600 hits.  Which
>> publications would you be inclined to trust?
>
> "Bush Worst President" gets 33,300,000 hits on Google.
>
> So, *my* search is obviously more valid than yours.
>
> 

I wasn't using the number of hits as proof of my point, but rather to give
Phil a large number of places to look, since he obviously is going to
mistrust any single source I put forward.

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5