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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oilTeams
On Mar 28, 10:48*am, PeterB wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:56*pm, (David Wright) wrote: In article , PeterB wrote: On Mar 27, 6:51*pm, Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal ... Health Lover. Gardasil Shill, Myrl Jeffcoat, goes ballistic and shows how once again, she will claim I said something I did not ... and then scream and me for her hallucination. Misquoting is very Barrett-esque! Watch this: "Ilena - I have never said that DES is safe! *You are lying through your teeth about my comments, and the spin you are putting on it! " * Myrl Jeffcoat, March 27, 2008 4:02p.m. ~~~~~~~~~~ Myrl made this false claim about DES ... " It believe it was used up until the late 1940s to prevent miscarriage. " *Myrl Jeffcoat 3/27/2008 FACTS: *Late 1960s: Six of the seven leading obstetrics textbooks stated that DES had no effect in preventing miscarriage in any group of patients. DES was still being prescribed to pregnant women and touted as a "wonder drug."` http://www.descancer.org/timeline.html Myrl Jeffcoat is doing the identical hype and advertisement for Gardasil as Eli Lilly did for DES ... and although she's been totally exposed ... her most important 'work' is dessiminating negative and false information about me. The rest is just Myrl trying to distract you readers from the even bigger lies she tells about vaccinations. * ~~~~~~~~~ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html "According to the CDC and most recognized sources, the year mercury was removed from childhood vaccines was 2001." * * * * * Myrl Jeffcoat March, 2008www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html Lies about Gardasil, DES, and Ilena Rosenthal Myrl Jeffcoat is misquoting the CDC .. and lying to all readers. This is ypical of her tactics since she began promoting the quackery of Stephen Barrett & QuackWatch while *harassing me after they lost to me in the Superior, Appeals and Suprme Court of California. Here is a list of childhood vaccinations that still continue mercury. Myrl and the Snake-oil (Vaccination) Team have been told this time and time again, but they repeat their Big Lie. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm As recently as today, the Ides of March ... after Dr. Kulacz carefully explained the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) ... up pops Wronger Than Wright repeating the Big Lie: "Absolutely correct. For example, the toxicity of mercury in very low doses and the possible harm that it can do in the human body. Why put mercury that is known to be so highly toxic into the human body? The answer is sufficientyly obvious - it should NOT be done. " Dr. Robert Kulacz David C. Wright, pure and utter liar. *"And now it's not being done any more, so why are people like you *getting so exercised about it? " http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm I'm not only aware of the existence of that table, I have posted the URL many times. The important thing is that the *only* vaccine on the list recommended for children is the flu vaccine, and it's available thimerosal-free. Anti-vax liars tend to omit these facts. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...er-than-Wright I like the "David C. Wright" part; apparently, Ilena saw that David "Chris" Wright and didn't realize it was a joke. *'Course, she's not that bright. David has been pushing "no-evidence" based medicine so long I think he sees himself as an artist. That makes no sense at all, but I don't expect much from you. ie., no evidence = no science. Given that so many of the "facts" you like to post here were pulled out of your imagination, I don't find your criticism weighing too heavily on me. Other than Roman Bystrianyk, no one here has posted more published scientific evidence than I have. *You won't acknowledge that because your "views" can't be supported outside mostly industry sources. *If I'm wrong, list 8 books you've read this past year that back up your so-called viewpoint.- Any idiot can write a book and have it self published. Try to use peer reviewed scientific literature. You cannot. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
In message , Mark Probert wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:48*am, PeterB wrote: [104 lines snipped] Other than Roman Bystrianyk, no one here has posted more published scientific evidence than I have. *You won't acknowledge that because your "views" can't be supported outside mostly industry sources. *If I'm wrong, list 8 books you've read this past year that back up your so-called viewpoint.- Any idiot can write a book and have it self published. Try to use peer reviewed scientific literature. You cannot. Don't be so sure. There's a HUGE amount of funding out there for medical schools to do "CAM" and med-school faculty, like all faculty, have to publish or perish. The University of Arizona, alas, is a leader in this regard; they have, however, recently been surpassed by Georgetown University which is making woo part of the required curriculum. In order to make sure that there's no way to avoid it, they're incorporating some woo in all of the basic classes (e.g. homeopathy in chemistry.) Publishers have to serve their markets, so expect to see a lot of material "peer reviewed" by academic homeopaths in the JAMA, NEJM, etc. -- | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
"David Wright" wrote in message . .. In article , JOHN wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message ... David has been pushing "no-evidence" based medicine so long I think he sees himself as an artist. LOL. what a life, pusing death and autism on a daily basis As opposed to whale.to -- pushing misinformation and paranoia continuously. (The chemtrails stuff is unintentionally hilarious, however, especially the use of orgone generators as protection.) So is the stuff on how to avoid satanic black lines, like the ones that burned his bum. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
In message , HCN wrote:
"David Wright" wrote in message . .. As opposed to whale.to -- pushing misinformation and paranoia continuously. (The chemtrails stuff is unintentionally hilarious, however, especially the use of orgone generators as protection.) So is the stuff on how to avoid satanic black lines, like the ones that burned his bum. My favorites are the ones about microwaves and how they turn food radioactive. -- | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
"Mark Probert" wrote in message ... On Mar 28, 10:48 am, PeterB wrote: On Mar 27, 11:56 pm, (David Wright) wrote: In article , PeterB wrote: On Mar 27, 6:51 pm, Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal ... Health Lover. Gardasil Shill, Myrl Jeffcoat, goes ballistic and shows how once again, she will claim I said something I did not ... and then scream and me for her hallucination. Misquoting is very Barrett-esque! Watch this: "Ilena - I have never said that DES is safe! You are lying through your teeth about my comments, and the spin you are putting on it! " Myrl Jeffcoat, March 27, 2008 4:02p.m. ~~~~~~~~~~ Myrl made this false claim about DES ... " It believe it was used up until the late 1940s to prevent miscarriage. " Myrl Jeffcoat 3/27/2008 FACTS: Late 1960s: Six of the seven leading obstetrics textbooks stated that DES had no effect in preventing miscarriage in any group of patients. DES was still being prescribed to pregnant women and touted as a "wonder drug."` http://www.descancer.org/timeline.html Myrl Jeffcoat is doing the identical hype and advertisement for Gardasil as Eli Lilly did for DES ... and although she's been totally exposed ... her most important 'work' is dessiminating negative and false information about me. The rest is just Myrl trying to distract you readers from the even bigger lies she tells about vaccinations. ~~~~~~~~~ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html "According to the CDC and most recognized sources, the year mercury was removed from childhood vaccines was 2001." Myrl Jeffcoat March, 2008www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html Lies about Gardasil, DES, and Ilena Rosenthal Myrl Jeffcoat is misquoting the CDC .. and lying to all readers. This is ypical of her tactics since she began promoting the quackery of Stephen Barrett & QuackWatch while harassing me after they lost to me in the Superior, Appeals and Suprme Court of California. Here is a list of childhood vaccinations that still continue mercury. Myrl and the Snake-oil (Vaccination) Team have been told this time and time again, but they repeat their Big Lie. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm As recently as today, the Ides of March ... after Dr. Kulacz carefully explained the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) ... up pops Wronger Than Wright repeating the Big Lie: "Absolutely correct. For example, the toxicity of mercury in very low doses and the possible harm that it can do in the human body. Why put mercury that is known to be so highly toxic into the human body? The answer is sufficientyly obvious - it should NOT be done. " Dr. Robert Kulacz David C. Wright, pure and utter liar. "And now it's not being done any more, so why are people like you getting so exercised about it? " http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm I'm not only aware of the existence of that table, I have posted the URL many times. The important thing is that the *only* vaccine on the list recommended for children is the flu vaccine, and it's available thimerosal-free. Anti-vax liars tend to omit these facts. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...er-than-Wright I like the "David C. Wright" part; apparently, Ilena saw that David "Chris" Wright and didn't realize it was a joke. 'Course, she's not that bright. David has been pushing "no-evidence" based medicine so long I think he sees himself as an artist. That makes no sense at all, but I don't expect much from you. ie., no evidence = no science. Given that so many of the "facts" you like to post here were pulled out of your imagination, I don't find your criticism weighing too heavily on me. Other than Roman Bystrianyk, no one here has posted more published scientific evidence than I have. You won't acknowledge that because your "views" can't be supported outside mostly industry sources. If I'm wrong, list 8 books you've read this past year that back up your so-called viewpoint.- Any idiot can write a book and have it self published. Try to use peer reviewed scientific literature. You cannot. http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Something Rotten at the Core of Science? by David F. Horrobin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the court attempted to set guidelines for U.S. judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed, and that therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation between reviewers' recommendations. The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review. Many scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the top legal authority in the United States that peer review might in some circumstances be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in the Guide to the Federal Rules of Evidence - one of whose functions is to interpret the judgement in the case of Daubert - states that "Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists would agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in pejorative terms such as "maverick," "failure," and "driven by bitterness." Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant of what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is less effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many journals that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided that the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print. However, peer review is also the process that controls access to funding, and here the situation becomes much more serious. There might often be only two or three realistic sources of funding for a project, and the networks of reviewers for these sources are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to pass the peer-review process might well mean that a project is never funded. Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability and objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements of science are to be greeted with public confidence - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such confidence is low and eroding - it should be able to demonstrate that peer review, "one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice," is a process that has been validated objectively as a reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been done. Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for making appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks for that evidence it is simply not there. Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process? For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the fallibility of peer review and have been calling for much more openness and objective evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted such open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as central to the scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda and the conclusions of science. Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have thrown a bombshell [6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something truly rotten at the core of science. Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin. Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of papers submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent papers out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent to two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn analyzed the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of variance. Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are alarmingly clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers' opinions were no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts, the content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of the variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the variance. These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer review, but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying. The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that provided by chance. Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority. Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection of the conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and Martyn findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the public might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is something rotten in the state of science. Public support can only erode further if science does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to develop validated processes for the distribution of publication rights, credit for completed work, and funds for new work. Funding is the most important issue that most urgently requires opening up to rigorous research and objective evaluation. What relevance does this have for pharmacology and pharmaceuticals? Despite enormous amounts of hype and optimistic puffery, pharmaceutical research is actually failing [7]. The annual number of new chemical entities submitted for approval is steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for techniques such as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is driven by failure, and not by success. The peer review process may be stifling innovation. Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry have destroyed rather than promoted innovation? In my own field of psychopharmacology, could it be that peer review has ensured that in depression and schizophrenia, we are still largely pursuing themes that were initiated in the 1950s? Could peer review explain the fact that in both diseases the efficacy of modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed in 1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences between old and new drugs are much hyped, modern research has failed substantially. Is it really a success that 27 of every 100 patients taking the selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitors stop treatment within six weeks compared with the 30 of every 100 who take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy establishments who run science. If science is to have any credibility - and also if it is to be successful - the peer-review process must be put on a much sounder and properly validated basis or scrapped altogether. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oilTeams
On Mar 29, 11:36*am, Mark Probert wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:48*am, PeterB wrote: On Mar 27, 11:56*pm, (DavidWright) wrote: In article , PeterB wrote: On Mar 27, 6:51*pm, Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal ... Health Lover. Gardasil Shill, Myrl Jeffcoat, goes ballistic and shows how once again, she will claim I said something I did not ... and then scream and me for her hallucination. Misquoting is very Barrett-esque! Watch this: "Ilena - I have never said that DES is safe! *You are lying through your teeth about my comments, and the spin you are putting on it! " * Myrl Jeffcoat, March 27, 2008 4:02p.m. ~~~~~~~~~~ Myrl made this false claim about DES ... " It believe it was used up until the late 1940s to prevent miscarriage. " *Myrl Jeffcoat 3/27/2008 FACTS: *Late 1960s: Six of the seven leading obstetrics textbooks stated that DES had no effect in preventing miscarriage in any group of patients. DES was still being prescribed to pregnant women and touted as a "wonder drug."` http://www.descancer.org/timeline.html Myrl Jeffcoat is doing the identical hype and advertisement for Gardasil as Eli Lilly did for DES ... and although she's been totally exposed ... her most important 'work' is dessiminating negative and false information about me. The rest is just Myrl trying to distract you readers from the even bigger lies she tells about vaccinations. * ~~~~~~~~~ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html "According to the CDC and most recognized sources, the year mercury was removed from childhood vaccines was 2001." * * * * * Myrl Jeffcoat March, 2008www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html Lies about Gardasil, DES, and Ilena Rosenthal Myrl Jeffcoat is misquoting the CDC .. and lying to all readers. This is ypical of her tactics since she began promoting the quackery of Stephen Barrett & QuackWatch while *harassing me after they lost to me in the Superior, Appeals and Suprme Court of California. Here is a list of childhood vaccinations that still continue mercury. Myrl and the Snake-oil (Vaccination) Team have been told this time and time again, but they repeat their Big Lie. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm As recently as today, the Ides of March ... after Dr. Kulacz carefully explained the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) ... up pops Wronger Than Wright repeating the Big Lie: "Absolutely correct. For example, the toxicity of mercury in very low doses and the possible harm that it can do in the human body. Why put mercury that is known to be so highly toxic into the human body? The answer is sufficientyly obvious - it should NOT be done. " Dr. Robert Kulacz DavidC. Wright, pure and utter liar. *"And now it's not being done any more, so why are people like you *getting so exercised about it? " http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm I'm not only aware of the existence of that table, I have posted the URL many times. The important thing is that the *only* vaccine on the list recommended for children is the flu vaccine, and it's available thimerosal-free. Anti-vax liars tend to omit these facts. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...er-than-Wright I like the "DavidC. Wright" part; apparently, Ilena saw thatDavid "Chris" Wright and didn't realize it was a joke. *'Course, she's not that bright. Davidhas been pushing "no-evidence" based medicine so long I think he sees himself as anartist. That makes no sense at all, but I don't expect much from you. ie., no evidence = noscience. Given that so many of the "facts" you like to post here were pulled out of your imagination, I don't find your criticism weighing too heavily on me. Other than Roman Bystrianyk, no one here has posted more published scientific evidence than I have. *You won't acknowledge that because your "views" can't be supported outside mostly industry sources. *If I'm wrong, list 8 books you've read this past year that back up your so-called viewpoint.- Any idiot can write a book and have it self published. Try to use peer reviewed scientific literature. You cannot. I see that David cannot do as I asked and thus you are blocking for him. When did I say anything about material that is "self published?" All the books, except maybe one, on my reading list are released by a publishing house. Peer reviewed studies are not what I asked about, either. So let me put the question to you, Markey. Can you list 8 books you've read (regardless of time frame) that back up your so-called viewpoint regarding the merits of modern medicine? If not, why not? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oilTeams
On Mar 29, 6:11*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Thanks for the excellent article, Jan. There is fallibility in peer review for many reasons, not the least of which is conflict of interest due to funding projects associated with scientific work. Here are a few excerpts from another good article at nature.com: "Fiona Godlee and colleagues at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the journal's regular reviewers, most of whom WERE AWARE [emphasis mine] that they were taking part in an experiment1. The reviewers, on average, reported fewer than TWO [emphasis mine] of the errors." [see http://www.nature.com/nature/peerrev...ure04990.html] Now, imagine if no one had told these reviewers that they were part of an experiment. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oilTeams
On Mar 30, 11:06*pm, wrote:
I see that David cannot do as I asked and thus you are blocking for him. *When did I say anything about material that is "self published?" * All the books, except maybe one, on my reading list are released by a publishing house. *Peer reviewed studies are not what I asked about, either. So let me put the question to you, Markey. *Can you list 8 books you've read (regardless of time frame) that back up your so-called viewpoint regarding the merits of modern medicine? * If not, why not? _chirp_ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
"HCN" wrote in message . .. So is the stuff on how to avoid satanic black lines, like the ones that burned his bum. I knew it, as soon as I saw HCN I thought--- it will be burnt bum and satanic lines. We are now in Pharma land. Satans about and playing the game he doesn't exist (nor energy lines), which is pretty odd when the most powerful organisation on the planet is worshiping Lucifer/Satan http://whale.to/b/freemason.html "In the ritual of exaltation, the name of the Great Architect of the Universe is revealed as JAH-BUL-ON......BUL = Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility god associated with 'licentious rites of imitative magic'. ......Baal, of course, was the 'false god' with whom Jahweh competed for the allegiance of the Israelites in the Old Testament. But more recently, within a hundred years of the creation of the Freemason's God, the sixteenth-century demonologist John Weir identified Baal as a devil." JAH-BUL-ON by Stephen Knight and when scientists have proven the existance of earth lines http://whale.to/v/tests_er.html http://whale.to/v/dubrov.html of course, demonstrating such abuse for the truth is is why you use the pseudonym for Hydrogen cyanide a pretty poisonous individual |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams
"JOHN" wrote in message ... "HCN" wrote in message . .. So is the stuff on how to avoid satanic black lines, like the ones that burned his bum. I knew it, as soon as I saw HCN I thought--- it will be burnt bum and satanic lines. We are now in Pharma land. Satans about and playing the game he doesn't exist (nor energy lines), which is pretty odd when the most powerful organisation on the planet is worshiping Lucifer/Satan http://whale.to/b/freemason.html "In the ritual of exaltation, the name of the Great Architect of the Universe is revealed as JAH-BUL-ON......BUL = Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility god associated with 'licentious rites of imitative magic'. .....Baal, of course, was the 'false god' with whom Jahweh competed for the allegiance of the Israelites in the Old Testament. But more recently, within a hundred years of the creation of the Freemason's God, the sixteenth-century demonologist John Weir identified Baal as a devil." JAH-BUL-ON by Stephen Knight and when scientists have proven the existance of earth lines http://whale.to/v/tests_er.html http://whale.to/v/dubrov.html of course, demonstrating such abuse for the truth is is why you use the pseudonym for Hydrogen cyanide Which is the stuff you try to get people to eat when you push laetrile! a pretty poisonous individual Thank you for that verification of your mental state. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | April 10th 08 01:49 PM |
The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | March 27th 08 10:02 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 4 | December 29th 07 07:16 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 28th 07 10:46 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 27th 07 06:11 PM |