MMR vaccine quotes

Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were
real, or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to
it ASAP. Once again, you're caught in a lie.

And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. sarcasm Now there's an unbiased source /sarcasm.

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
..

As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/118/1/e139

Bryan


"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine"
The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act

By Bernard Rimland
Dr. Bernard Rimland is the founder and director of the Autism Research
Institute

I strongly oppose endorsing "The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act"
unless it includes clear and explicit language supporting meaningful
research on the role of vaccines and mercury as plausible causes of the
autism epidemic.

The proposed Combating Autism legislation is as sincerely dedicated to
combating autism as O.J. Simpson was to finding the "real killers" of his
ex-wife Nicole.

The fear that failure to pass the CAA will lead to a catastrophic
failure to fund future autism research vastly overestimates the value of
government funded research. Most such research is only of academic
interest, which gathers dust on library shelves and advances the "publish or
perish" aspirations of academic researchers. Is there any evidence whatever
that more than a miniscule percent of government funded research has
produced any positive and useful benefits for autistic children and their
families, or ever will? If you are aware of any examples showing such
research is serving a truly useful purpose, please let me know.

I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I
pointed out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause
of the epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory
research (as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated
since that time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the
vaccines contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967
from the mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had
during their pregnancy.)

The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. Real progress has been made in
bringing recovery to autistic children by physicians and researchers who
attend the autism/vaccine/mercury connection (see
www.AutismRecoveredChildren.com) A few million dollars, appropriately
directed, has accomplished, and will continue to accomplish much more than
the tens of millions of dollars directed along paths intended to exonerate
the vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, the IOM and the AAP.

I hope our consortium will purchase, or at least threaten to purchase
ads in USA Today an elsewhere saying "Defeat the (Pretend to) Combat Autism
Act". We should insist that significant resources be directed at exploiting
the treatments that we know work, such as special diets, food supplements
and chelation. We have a great deal to gain and nothing to lose by speaking
out loudly against this sham legislation which would, in the long run, be
harmful rather than beneficial to our children

Bryan Heit wrote:
Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were
real, or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to
it ASAP. Once again, you're caught in a lie.

And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. sarcasm Now there's an unbiased source /sarcasm.

I took several phrases from the letter and did a " " search on Google
and received no hits. I did the same on Google Scholar, and got the same.

I do not think the letter exists.

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were real,
or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to it ASAP.
Once again, you're caught in a lie.



And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. sarcasm Now there's an unbiased source /sarcasm.

Bryan

Hard to know what you are responding to. Try and keep my text in your
response.

the letter was by Clifford Miller http://www.whale.to/vaccines/miller6.html
and he produced a page from a Cochrane study

once again you resort to the lying accusation when you can't take it

and I think their bias is less than Fombonnes, if you want to trade ad
hominems

Bryan Heit wrote:

I see. Data is sound, so attack the researcher, and do it though a
letter you supposedly received from an unidentifiable source (Mr
Miller). I'd also point out that Eric Fombonne was just one of several
researchers on the project. This is how science is done - you surround
yourself with various experts, so that the study is done right. So you
can question the validity of Eric Fombonne's credentials all you want,
but it doesn't change the fact that he was one of 6 experts; including
MD's and PhD's, who all worked on the project.

For that matter, I don't suppose you could provide a link to prove what
you say is true; a search of Cochrane's webpage didn't bring up any
evidence of the article you claim exists; they don't even have Eric
Fombonne's name in their search engine! Not that I expect it exists;
this blatant attack on Eric Fombonne reeks of desperation. Must really
suck to see a long-held belief suffer a fatal wound.

It's very easy to falsely claim that something was said somewhere in
Cochrane, because the vast majority of the targets for
anti-vaccination liars do not have access to Cochrane, or even if they
do (anyone with an Australian IP address, for example) they probably
wouldn't know where to look.

One of the reasons that the anti-vaccination liars hate Stephen Basser
is that he took the time to examine every one of the references in
Viera Scheibner's book and found that many of them were spurious. This
is not new -
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...er.htm#15yurko

As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/118/1/e139

Bryan
--
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

I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material;
further evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane
study behind it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if
this was truly based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't
you link your page directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different
groups of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the
things he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science
illiterate like yourself.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven.
But you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE
THING!

Bryan

And in another turn of events john has published yet another
science-free letter with no outside links, no citations of actual
medical studies, and nothing more then wild claims with nothing of
substance to back them up.

Come on, John. If vaccines are so dangerous you surely can find some
little bit of science from the last 5 or so years to prove the case.

You seem to be good at forging letters, why not forge an entire
scientific study?

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
And in another turn of events john has published yet another science-free
letter with no outside links, no citations of actual medical studies, and
nothing more then wild claims with nothing of substance to back them up.

Come on, John. If vaccines are so dangerous you surely can find some
little bit of science from the last 5 or so years to prove the case.

You seem to be good at forging letters, why not forge an entire scientific
study?

Bryan

I think you are losing it Bryan, as usual you use ad hominem, me lying,
without a shred of evidence. Which is what I'd expect from someone who
works for the gov, Canada is it? is it true that the Canadian gov has never
paid out for vaccine injuries until recently?

That letter has a link to Millers web site, he is a lawyer
(Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England
Civil Proceedings), but you prefer to slander me instead of using your
finger to click your mouse

Let me help you, http://www.whale.to/a/miller_h.html

I expect you to withdraw your accusation of me making up the letter.

And it is easy to prove vaccines are dangerous, the $1 Billion paid out by
the US gov is evidence of that. Which is from 1-5% of the actual number of
vaccine injuries. And we know MMR kills, as the governments have paid out
for that.

I leave the fraudulent science to people like Frombonne and the AAP, and the
CDC, and IOM.
I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed
out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the
epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research
(as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that
time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines
contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the
mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during
their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. The
(Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland

Bryan Heit wrote:
I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material;
further evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane
study behind it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if
this was truly based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't
you link your page directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different
groups of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the
things he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science
illiterate like yourself.

Here is John's Clifford Miller:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cliffor...r/probono.html




All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven.
But you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE
THING!

Bryan

Poor Bryan. Repeats the same ole, same ole..even AFTER he read it.

the letter was by Clifford Miller http://www.whale.to/vaccines/miller6.html
and he produced a page from a Cochrane study

Cochrane MMR review page 21

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material; further
evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane study behind
it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if this was truly
based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't you link your page
directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different groups
of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the things
he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science illiterate like
yourself.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven. But
you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE THING!

Bryan