A conversation with an anti-vaccination liar

Peter Bowditch wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

I have never denied that vaccines (or anything else) are completely
harmless.

Before everyone climbs all over me, what I really meant was "claimed"
not "denied".

Anti-vaccination liars are, of course, free to quote my mistake until
the end of time or all children are dead, whichever comes first.

I can't quite definitely make out from your messages whether
you are simply mistaken or simply dishonest (which
is why I bothered to comment upon your post, it's worthless
to argue with crooks bent upon dishonesty.)

So let us assume you are simply mistaken -- in that case,
why are you picking nits instead of addressing substance?

Surely the basic argument has been clear to any honestly
interested parties: there was a mistake made in marketing
some vaccine(s). Mistakes happen in science, and an
ESSENTIAL component (unlike "peer review") of science
is reviewing hypotheses from mistakes.

Are you claiming this is impossible to have had happen?
Are you claiming this did not happen in the particular cases?
Are you claiming that the interested parties are so
honest that if it did happen, they would have sounded
alarms and pushed their companies into bankruptcy
courts, allowing their rivals a clear field and
destroying their precious careers?

What's in your mind that turns you against the
very people out to protect your interests, and
makes you protective of the people who care for
little but the bottom line and their personal careers?
Why defend those who would happily leave you
paralyzed or an imbecile (by covering up any
mistakes, so no research could be done to
fix you up, if a mistake along that line occurred?)

Care to analyze yourself a bit here?

I can understand the motive of the PR types,
but it's hard to understand some of the motives
around here.

wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:


I have never denied that vaccines (or anything else) are completely
harmless.

Before everyone climbs all over me, what I really meant was "claimed"
not "denied".

Anti-vaccination liars are, of course, free to quote my mistake until
the end of time or all children are dead, whichever comes first.


I can't quite definitely make out from your messages whether
you are simply mistaken or simply dishonest (which
is why I bothered to comment upon your post, it's worthless
to argue with crooks bent upon dishonesty.)

So let us assume you are simply mistaken -- in that case,
why are you picking nits instead of addressing substance?

Surely the basic argument has been clear to any honestly
interested parties: there was a mistake made in marketing
some vaccine(s).

Exactly what is the mistake?


Mistakes happen in science, and an
ESSENTIAL component (unlike "peer review") of science
is reviewing hypotheses from mistakes.

Are you claiming this is impossible to have had happen?
Are you claiming this did not happen in the particular cases?
Are you claiming that the interested parties are so
honest that if it did happen, they would have sounded
alarms and pushed their companies into bankruptcy
courts, allowing their rivals a clear field and
destroying their precious careers?

What's in your mind that turns you against the
very people out to protect your interests, and
makes you protective of the people who care for
little but the bottom line and their personal careers?
Why defend those who would happily leave you
paralyzed or an imbecile (by covering up any
mistakes, so no research could be done to
fix you up, if a mistake along that line occurred?)

Care to analyze yourself a bit here?

I can understand the motive of the PR types,
but it's hard to understand some of the motives
around here.

wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

I have never denied that vaccines (or anything else) are completely
harmless.

Before everyone climbs all over me, what I really meant was "claimed"
not "denied".

Anti-vaccination liars are, of course, free to quote my mistake until
the end of time or all children are dead, whichever comes first.

I can't quite definitely make out from your messages whether
you are simply mistaken or simply dishonest (which
is why I bothered to comment upon your post, it's worthless
to argue with crooks bent upon dishonesty.)

I'll help you out. Neither.

So let us assume you are simply mistaken -- in that case,
why are you picking nits instead of addressing substance?

As I am not mistaken, your question is moot.

Surely the basic argument has been clear to any honestly
interested parties: there was a mistake made in marketing
some vaccine(s). Mistakes happen in science, and an
ESSENTIAL component (unlike "peer review") of science
is reviewing hypotheses from mistakes.

What were these mistakes?

Are you claiming this is impossible to have had happen?

For what to have had happen?

Are you claiming this did not happen in the particular cases?

What cases?

Are you claiming that the interested parties are so
honest that if it did happen, they would have sounded
alarms and pushed their companies into bankruptcy
courts, allowing their rivals a clear field and
destroying their precious careers?

What the **** are you talking about? Do you have a point?

What's in your mind that turns you against the
very people out to protect your interests, and
makes you protective of the people who care for
little but the bottom line and their personal careers?

The people out to protect my interests are not the people who want to
deny children the chance to grow up.

Why defend those who would happily leave you
paralyzed or an imbecile (by covering up any
mistakes, so no research could be done to
fix you up, if a mistake along that line occurred?)

As I asked above, what the **** are you talking about?

Care to analyze yourself a bit here?

I can understand the motive of the PR types,
but it's hard to understand some of the motives
around here.

My motives are simple and transparent. I love children. I want to see
them grow up into healthy adults. They can't do that if they are dead
or damaged, which are the inevitable results if the anti-vaccination
liars get their way. I cannot understand why they hate children so
much.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:00:49 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


How can you defend the lies Barrett/Quackwatch/defunct NCAHF spreads
about the deaths and injuries after vaccinations, Peter?

"JohnDoe" wrote in message news:42f1bbb4$0$23415
Could you please explain to me how I become a member of 'The Elite'? It
sounds like I better become one quick or I'm gonna be in big trouble.

No one in their right mind would want to be a Satanist. You just have to
dodge the medical hoaxes http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html

and see his main control ploy--fear of disease
http://www.whale.to/a/fear_dis.html

john wrote:
"JohnDoe" wrote in message news:42f1bbb4$0$23415

Could you please explain to me how I become a member of 'The Elite'? It
sounds like I better become one quick or I'm gonna be in big trouble.


No one in their right mind would want to be a Satanist. You just have to
dodge the medical hoaxes http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html

and see his main control ploy--fear of disease
http://www.whale.to/a/fear_dis.html

Mind if I sneeze on you when I have the flu and see what happens? No,
better still, let's inject you with HIV and see what happens. You should
have no problem with that, since germs do not cause disease, do they?

What I find amazing is that the psychiatric disorder with which the
maker(s) of whale.to are obviously afflicted does not interfere with
their ability to use a computer, or at least lead a life that allows
them to publish that stuff. Most people with that sort of mental
condition can be found on streetcorners mumbling things to themselves
and occasionaly shouting incomprehensible stuff. And the Salvation Army
homeless shelter does not provide internet access AFAIK.

Ilena Rose wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:00:49 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


How can you defend the lies Barrett/Quackwatch/defunct NCAHF spreads
about the deaths and injuries after vaccinations, Peter?

You are being duped; "Peter Bowditch" is yet another
face of Public Relations. This one is good, for
a while I was in doubt!

You can't argue with these people, they have
no concern for actual human beings, they only care
for their few bucks. I recommend not paying
any attention to these people except using
them for generating attention to the issues
that deserve attention.

They are useful for that reason, but always
remember not to get upset by anything they say.
And never try to have the last word. Let
these dudes have the last words, that way
they upset more honest lurkers and generate
more attention.

Trying to respond to every nonsensical thing
they say is not a good idea. Just set them
off, respond to the points until they are
reduced to putting forth clear nonsense
and being overly hypocritical, then leave
them alone!

wrote:
Ilena Rose wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:00:49 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


How can you defend the lies Barrett/Quackwatch/defunct NCAHF spreads
about the deaths and injuries after vaccinations, Peter?

You are being duped; "Peter Bowditch" is yet another
face of Public Relations. This one is good, for
a while I was in doubt!

Did this sentence make sense to anybody?



You can't argue with these people, they have
no concern for actual human beings,

'They' demonstrably care about kids.

they only care
for their few bucks.

What few bucks?

I recommend not paying
any attention to these people except using
them for generating attention to the issues
that deserve attention.

They are useful for that reason, but always
remember not to get upset by anything they say.
And never try to have the last word. Let
these dudes have the last words, that way
they upset more honest lurkers and generate
more attention.

Does this person have a point?

Trying to respond to every nonsensical thing
they say is not a good idea. Just set them
off, respond to the points until they are
reduced to putting forth clear nonsense
and being overly hypocritical, then leave
them alone!

What hte **** is this guy talking about?

Peter Bowditch wrote:

What were these mistakes?

"What mistakes"?

"What mistakes?"

So you are basically saying you have been generating
all this noise without even knowing what mistake
we have all been talking about?

Well, let us be stupid for a minute and assume
that in all of your reading and writing, you
still have no clue what you have been talking
about. So here is a url, read the part
about the "Danish study" which was supposed
to prove that the theory about a vaccination
mistake was wrong:

http://tinyurl.com/dkbmw

After you read the URL, you can then also do
your homework and actually read about the numerous
other things that you have been writing about,
presumably without any clue whatsoever.

[If Peter Bowditch were a lawyer: "Your honor,
my client is innocent. My heart bleeds that
such an innocent man is being accused by
evil people. Here are lots of reasons why
my client is innocent...

(three hours later...)

You ask what is my client accused
of? What is my client accused of?
Well, I didn't have time to read the case
documents, but clearly whatever my client
is accused of, didn't happen.]

cathyb wrote:
wrote:

Ilena Rose wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:00:49 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


How can you defend the lies Barrett/Quackwatch/defunct NCAHF spreads
about the deaths and injuries after vaccinations, Peter?

You are being duped; "Peter Bowditch" is yet another
face of Public Relations. This one is good, for
a while I was in doubt!


Did this sentence make sense to anybody?



You can't argue with these people, they have
no concern for actual human beings,


'They' demonstrably care about kids.


they only care
for their few bucks.


What few bucks?


I recommend not paying
any attention to these people except using
them for generating attention to the issues
that deserve attention.

They are useful for that reason, but always
remember not to get upset by anything they say.
And never try to have the last word. Let
these dudes have the last words, that way
they upset more honest lurkers and generate
more attention.


Does this person have a point?

Trying to respond to every nonsensical thing
they say is not a good idea. Just set them
off, respond to the points until they are
reduced to putting forth clear nonsense
and being overly hypocritical, then leave
them alone!


What hte **** is this guy talking about?

Phew, thanks for posting this Cathy, I almost started to think the
problem was me. Glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't understand
a word of this post. The words are there, but the meaning is missing.