Anna wrote,
"If someone says something meaningful and intelligent I don't give a rat's
> patoot if they have a doctorate or not.  I do NOT follow people based on
> their CREDENTIALS...I listen to the W O R D S. His words had the
> potential to do harm.  This is a violation of the hypocratic oath among
> other moral rules of conduct," and Ben agreed with this statement.

I am also in agreement with the above statement, along with many other
people. On the other hand, some folks are defending the "doctor's" views
and statements on the basis that they think he is a "caring person" and
"wants to help others."

Actually, there is are unresolved issues of logic, honesty, and ethics
implicit here that affects us all, whatever o
ur viewpoint. First, this
individual's personal goals and agenda (i.e., a sincere wish to help others
versus a desire to develop business opportunities)is BESIDE THE POINT.
None of us can read his mind - or should, if we can. What IS to
the point is that HE IS THE ONLY PERSON POSTING TO THE LIST WHO CALLS
HIMSELF "DR.", or uses any other title of scientific or social prominence
to lend credence to his views. This diminishes any true stature of his
views, and diminishes us as open-minded seekers of knowledge.
Second, whether he has the "right" to use the title or not, we must
keep always in mind that the ancient and honored Hippocratic Oath
does not apply to him since he is not a medical doctor.

IMHO, he would be far better off - whatever his true agenda -
to delete "Dr." from his email handle and simply speak his mind like
the rest of us.