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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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.] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | June 28th 04 07:41 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | April 17th 04 12:24 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | March 18th 04 09:11 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | January 16th 04 09:15 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 1 | December 15th 03 09:41 AM |