The Big Lie Repeated Over & Over by the Vaccination Snake-oil Teams

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.

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 ----------+

"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

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 ----------+

"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.

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?

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.

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_

"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

"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.