Nazareth toddler third Israeli to die after receiving swine flu vaccination

(Beverly Erlebacher) wrote:

In article ,
dr_jeff wrote:
john wrote:
"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
john wrote:

An autopsy performed Thursday at the Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic
Medicine in Tel Aviv revealed that the toddler died of complications from
her kidney condition, not from the vaccine.

They would say that, wouldn't they. Kind of like allowing the perpetrators
to be the expert witness.

They would say it because it's true.

I'm waiting for John et al to trumpet some case where a recently
vaccinated person dies in a car crash as a vaccine related death.

One of the claimed "deaths from HPV vaccine" was a passenger who died
in a car crash some months after the vaccination.

You couldn't make this stuff up..

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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

One of the claimed "deaths from HPV vaccine" was a passenger who died
in a car crash some months after the vaccination.

You couldn't make this stuff up..


You do all the time, lets see the evidence for that one

And you make up vaccine lies all the time
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/real.html

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

One of the claimed "deaths from HPV vaccine" was a passenger who died
in a car crash some months after the vaccination.

You couldn't make this stuff up..


You do all the time, lets see the evidence for that one

And you make up vaccine lies all the time
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/real.html


Thanks for that, John.

I notice that you have removed the photographs of me and put them on
the other wonderful page you have about me. You know, the one that I
am so ashamed of that I have it featured at
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/tributes/tributes.htm

One of my friends was really pleased to have his picture on a kook
site, specially one as kooky as yours. I must tell him about the
change. In fact I will announce it on Twitter and Facebook so that
everyone can see it and have a good laugh at you.

Oh, and by the way, as you cited whale.to Scopie's Law has been
invoked and you lose the game.

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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Oh, and by the way, as you cited whale.to Scopie's Law has been
invoked and you lose the game.


only Noddy uses logical fallacies, and wins

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Oh, and by the way, as you cited whale.to Scopie's Law has been
invoked and you lose the game.


only Noddy uses logical fallacies, and wins


As I used no logical fallacies I'm not sure what you are talking
about.

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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Oh, and by the way, as you cited whale.to Scopie's Law has been
invoked and you lose the game.


only Noddy uses logical fallacies, and wins


As I used no logical fallacies I'm not sure what you are talking
about.



You only use 2 logicall fallacies, Scopies law and ad hominem, usually you
are mad.

But if you could get simple logical fallacies you would explode, after all,
no pseudo-skeptic can think as he would be after the truth, not propaganda
central

Scopies law, even a 12 year old could see the absurdity of that one.
http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Oh, and by the way, as you cited whale.to Scopie's Law has been
invoked and you lose the game.


only Noddy uses logical fallacies, and wins


As I used no logical fallacies I'm not sure what you are talking
about.



You only use 2 logicall fallacies, Scopies law and ad hominem, usually you
are mad.

Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
hominem.


But if you could get simple logical fallacies you would explode, after all,
no pseudo-skeptic can think as he would be after the truth, not propaganda
central

Scopies law, even a 12 year old could see the absurdity of that one.
http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html

Yes, the old appeal to incredulity is a favourite of loons. It comes
to the fore with creationists, but quackonauts use it because they
can't understand medicine or science.






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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
hominem.


care to explain that one


This is ad hominem:

"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
mental hospital."

"Ah, yes, the lying sleazebag McCandless."


The ad hominem argument is a fallacy, though often an ad hominem attack is
not even an argument but merely an insult.

whether he is insane or not bears no relevance to his argument, obviously.

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
hominem.


care to explain that one


This is ad hominem:

"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
mental hospital."

A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving as an
insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad hominem.


"Ah, yes, the lying sleazebag McCandless."

Again a comment on the evidence before me. McCandless says that she
can actually see metallic mercury in the urine of children. Thus she
is a liar. She charges money to provide a useless medical treatment.
Thus she is a sleazebag.

QED. No ad hominem present.



The ad hominem argument is a fallacy, though often an ad hominem attack is
not even an argument but merely an insult.

whether he is insane or not bears no relevance to his argument, obviously.

What? Of course it does.




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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving as an
insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad hominem.

Yes it is, end of story. You are not qualified to diagnose insanity, and a
practicing medical doctor would hardly be allowed to practice if insane.



"Ah, yes, the lying sleazebag McCandless."

Again a comment on the evidence before me. McCandless says that she
can actually see metallic mercury in the urine of children. Thus she
is a liar. She charges money to provide a useless medical treatment.
Thus she is a sleazebag.


You are not qualified to offer a comment, obvious ad hominem, and we know
why you abuse these 2, as they both say vaccines cause autism or death.