|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
May 18th 05, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:U6uie.3306$z_.2243@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... (...) Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Neither the site (world natural health organziation) nor the author (Baylock) are, IMHO, credible. Yess, we know you aren't for health *freedom* Nothing about that site promotes true health freedom. For health freedom to be real, it must include freedom from bull****. Thus, that site is anti-health freedom. Perhaps you can find some peer-reviewed articles to back your views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Perhaps you will find your views there. You will find good information he www.quackwatch.com. Cue Jan to snip that. She is as predictable as a fart after a bowl of beans. Typical of Mark. http://www.chelationtherapyonline.co...p182.htm#quack Here is the photo of the man behind the web site http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html. He often attacks various health products and practices by making false claims about them, as if those claims came FROM them, and then knocks down these straw men of his own device. One of the most evil people on the web is a former psychiatrist who lashes out against just about every possible alternative health product or practice. It is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his pages you can assume you are doing a good job! He attacks chelation therapy, of course, but he selects a "straw man" to attack. In other words, the early explanation of how chelation therapy works is well proven to be false, even though many people are still repeating those lies. But, the more thoughtful intravenous doctors have discarded this early theory and gone on to the second theory, mentioned on another page (Click Here). After EDTA was found effective in chelating and removing toxic metals from the blood, some scientists postulated that hardened arteries could be softened if the calcium in their walls was removed. The first indication that EDTA treatment might benefit patients with atherosclerosis came from Clarke, Clarke, and Mosher, who, in 1956, reported that patients with occlusive peripheral vascular disease said they felt better after treatment with EDTA [American Journal of Medical Science 230:654-666, 1956]. (Source) or, at least, ones by a credible author or on a credible site. Thanks. Jeff Perhaps you need to retract your statement. They are proven to be safe. That is untrue. http://www.909shot.com/Issues/VAERS.htm In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act See the word ****Injury*****, Jeff??? Guess, what?? That means. UNSAFE! LL/Jan 
|
|
#22
May 18th 05, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
PF Riley wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 02:59:20 GMT, (David Wright) wrote: In article , john wrote: ******** to that, you vaccinators have to think that or your world would crumble Poor John. I can't wait for his explanation of why mumps and measles rates are shooting up in England (in the wake of reduced vaccination). Oh, come on! You know he will claim either that public health officials are simply lying about diseases or other diseases or "toxins" are being mistaken for mumps and measles. You've failed to consider that the mumps and measles may be either good for the kid or at least harmless so the rising rates are actually a public health boon. -- 00doc
|
|
#23
May 18th 05, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
00doc wrote: PF Riley wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 02:59:20 GMT, (David Wright) wrote: In article , john wrote: ******** to that, you vaccinators have to think that or your world would crumble Poor John. I can't wait for his explanation of why mumps and measles rates are shooting up in England (in the wake of reduced vaccination). Oh, come on! You know he will claim either that public health officials are simply lying about diseases or other diseases or "toxins" are being mistaken for mumps and measles. You've failed to consider that the mumps and measles may be either good for the kid or at least harmless so the rising rates are actually a public health boon. I'm assuming you're kidding, but I've seen exactly that claim made by some of the anti-vac whackos. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor
|
|
#24
May 18th 05, 06:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:BRtie.3286$z_.1398@attbi_s71... "Rich" wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:Ks8ie.221$z_.76@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message news 
"john" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Andrew Wakefield is a sad case. He started out with what I am sure were the best of intentions (to explore the null hypothesis that the MMR might not pose any health risk autism), but he was blinded by the allure of international recognition and forgot his role as a researcher. ******** to that, you vaccinators have to think that or your world would crumble I don't know why Wakefield said what he said. The reality of the matter is that vaccines save millions of lives a year. And they have been proven safe. Jeff http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm NO This is a story about a letter that claims that a research study found harm to children for thimerosal preservative in vaccines. NO referrence to the original study is given, only an opinion. This does not constitute a credible source. In fact, let's look at the source. This website is also campaigning against fluoride, monosodium glutamate, aspartame, genetically modified foods, chemtrails [!], Codex Alimentarius, and, of course, vaccinations in general. They also sell "ministerial credentials" up to and including "ordained minister" "if you feel it's something you need". --Rich On page 16 as well, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. He states, "As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking." Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in that meeting ---was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn't get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right." This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams? It's a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called "uncertainties." Back to Jeff's statement: And they have been proven safe. Indeed they have not. Actually, I have to agree with you on this one, Jan. Like most health interventions (including "natural" ones) vaccination is not 100.00% safe. For example, about 80 people per million who recieve smallpox vaccination will suffer adverse reactions, and one or two, on average, will die. Six in 30,000 people vaccinated for polio will actually get polio from the vaccine. Hardly anything is completely safe, although no vaccination is as dangerous as driving across town. --Rich
|
|
#25
May 18th 05, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:BRtie.3286$z_.1398@attbi_s71... "Rich" wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:Ks8ie.221$z_.76@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message news
"john" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Andrew Wakefield is a sad case. He started out with what I am sure were the best of intentions (to explore the null hypothesis that the MMR might not pose any health risk autism), but he was blinded by the allure of international recognition and forgot his role as a researcher. ******** to that, you vaccinators have to think that or your world would crumble I don't know why Wakefield said what he said. The reality of the matter is that vaccines save millions of lives a year. And they have been proven safe. Jeff http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm NO This is a story about a letter that claims that a research study found harm to children for thimerosal preservative in vaccines. NO referrence to the original study is given, only an opinion. This does not constitute a credible source. In fact, let's look at the source. This website is also campaigning against fluoride, monosodium glutamate, aspartame, genetically modified foods, chemtrails [!], Codex Alimentarius, and, of course, vaccinations in general. They also sell "ministerial credentials" up to and including "ordained minister" "if you feel it's something you need". --Rich On page 16 as well, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. He states, "As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking." Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in that meeting ---was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn't get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right." This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams? It's a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called "uncertainties." Back to Jeff's statement: And they have been proven safe. Indeed they have not. http://www.909shot.com/Issues/VAERS.htm The hotlots idea has never been proven. Vaccines have prevented something like 15,000,000 deaths a year. There are some very serious reactions. But nothing like the 15,000,000 lives they save a year. The benefits of vaccines far outweight the risks. Jeff LL/Jan
|
|
#26
May 18th 05, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:U6uie.3306$z_.2243@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... (...) Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Neither the site (world natural health organziation) nor the author (Baylock) are, IMHO, credible. Yess, we know you aren't for health *freedom* Perhaps you can find some peer-reviewed articles to back your views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Perhaps you will find your views there. or, at least, ones by a credible author or on a credible site. Thanks. Jeff Perhaps you need to retract your statement. They are proven to be safe. That is untrue. http://www.909shot.com/Issues/VAERS.htm In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act See the word ****Injury*****, Jeff??? Guess, what?? That means. UNSAFE! Nothing is 100% safe. People die from drinking tap water. Compared to the risks of dying from vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccines are safe. Something like 15,000,000 lives are saved every year by vaccines. Compared to that, there are only a handful of serious vacciine reactions. Jeff LL/Jan
|
|
#27
May 18th 05, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:IUuie.3371$z_.84@attbi_s71... "Eric Bohlman" wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in news:U6uie.3306 $z_.2243@attbi_s71: Perhaps you need to retract your statement. They are proven to be safe. That is untrue. http://www.909shot.com/Issues/VAERS.htm In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act See the word ****Injury*****, Jeff??? Guess, what?? That means. UNSAFE! Only to someone living in a fantasy world where "safe" means "zero risk." In reality-land, we only call something "unsafe" if the risk of it causing injury exceeds its benefits. For example, both driving while sober and driving while drunk are capable of causing serious injury to oneself or others. We call the first one "safe" and the second one "unsafe" because being drunk while driving substantially increases the risk of causing injury without offering any benefit. We have no problems talking about safe driving and safe drivers. In the case of vaccines, the risks of *not* giving them vastly exceed the risks of giving them. Neither option carries zero risk; the non- vaccination option is far riskier than the vaccination option. Refusing to acknowledge those risks won't make them go away. Sins of omission are no better than sins of commission. Risk exceed the benefits means very little to those damaged for life. What about those who are damaged from life from perinatal rubella? Does the risk mean much them? Jeff's statement is untrue. For more information, read the entire website, every parent has a right to know. Absolutely. And every parent has a right to know about the risks of not getting vaccinated and the 15,000,000 people who are saved each year. They have a right to know that people die horrible deaths from pertussis, diptheria, tetanus, chicken pox, measles (plus about 0.1% have permanent disability afterwords), etc. Parents should be given all the information, not just your one-sided view. In the 1950s, which was more concerning to parents? That their kids would get polio or that there would be a nuclear bomb? Polio. Ever see an iron lung in hospitals? There are about 50 left, all on patients from the 50s and 60s. Most of them have been recycled or given to museums. Jeff LL/Jan
|
|
#29
May 18th 05, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:aXuie.3197$V2.1925@attbi_s72... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:U6uie.3306$z_.2243@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... (...) Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Neither the site (world natural health organziation) nor the author (Baylock) are, IMHO, credible. Yess, we know you aren't for health *freedom* Nothing about that site promotes true health freedom. For health freedom to be real, it must include freedom from bull****. Thus, that site is anti-health freedom. Perhaps you can find some peer-reviewed articles to back your views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Perhaps you will find your views there. You will find good information he www.quackwatch.com. Cue Jan to snip that. She is as predictable as a fart after a bowl of beans. Typical of Mark. http://www.chelationtherapyonline.co...p182.htm#quack Here is the photo of the man behind the web site http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html. He often attacks various health products and practices by making false claims about them, as if those claims came FROM them, and then knocks down these straw men of his own device. Can you please give peer-reviewed evidence that Barret's claims are false? If he makes all these false claims, it should be easy to find evidence that his claims are false. One of the most evil people on the web is a former psychiatrist who lashes out against just about every possible alternative health product or practice. It is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his pages you can assume you are doing a good job! Wow. With all these false claims, you should be able to find peer-reviewed evidence that his claims are false. He attacks chelation therapy, of course, but he selects a "straw man" to attack. In other words, the early explanation of how chelation therapy works is well proven to be false, even though many people are still repeating those lies. But, the more thoughtful intravenous doctors have discarded this early theory and gone on to the second theory, mentioned on another page (Click Here). After EDTA was found effective in chelating and removing toxic metals from the blood, some scientists postulated that hardened arteries could be softened if the calcium in their walls was removed. The first indication that EDTA treatment might benefit patients with atherosclerosis came from Clarke, Clarke, and Mosher, who, in 1956, reported that patients with occlusive peripheral vascular disease said they felt better after treatment with EDTA [American Journal of Medical Science 230:654-666, 1956]. (Source) Yeah, and if I spent a few hundred dollars on a treatment, I would claim I felt better, too. Can you please provide peer-reviewed evidence that patients who get the chelation therapy have few heart attacks, live longer, less chest pain or any other objective measure of benefit? Jeff or, at least, ones by a credible author or on a credible site. Thanks. Jeff Perhaps you need to retract your statement. They are proven to be safe. That is untrue. http://www.909shot.com/Issues/VAERS.htm In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act See the word ****Injury*****, Jeff??? Guess, what?? That means. UNSAFE! LL/Jan
|
|
#30
May 18th 05, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:aXuie.3197$V2.1925@attbi_s72... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:U6uie.3306$z_.2243@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gspie.3022$z_.86@attbi_s71... (...) Do you have a credible source? YES http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm Neither the site (world natural health organziation) nor the author (Baylock) are, IMHO, credible. Yess, we know you aren't for health *freedom* Nothing about that site promotes true health freedom. For health freedom to be real, it must include freedom from bull****. Thus, that site is anti-health freedom. Perhaps you can find some peer-reviewed articles to back your views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Perhaps you will find your views there. You will find good information he www.quackwatch.com. Cue Jan to snip that. She is as predictable as a fart after a bowl of beans. Typical of Mark. Yes, it is typical of me to post facts and opinions based on facts. Thanks for noticing. Drivel deleted.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Investigation: The Meningococcal Gold Rush | john | Kids Health | 0 | February 7th 05 10:12 PM |
| MMR scare doctor planned rival vaccine | Vaccine-Man | Kids Health | 4 | November 15th 04 02:05 PM |
| MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story | john | Kids Health | 1 | October 11th 04 09:47 PM |
| How not to do science, Wakefield style | M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 2, 2004 | Kids Health | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:44 PM |
| Wakefield Colleague Urges MMR | Markasurusi usProbertasaurusius | Kids Health | 3 | November 1st 03 04:48 AM |
Linear Mode
