9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
john
9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
"vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
with the following 9 questions.
Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
in scientific and medical circles.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
vaccines?
2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study
which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove
that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was
attributable to inoculation of populations?
4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of
vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism
and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine
study?
One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of
any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health
agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of
vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or
achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to
human health).
There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have
objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect
on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address
those.
******************************************************************************
Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of
vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for
use in humans.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human
health and prevents disease?
6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits
of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the
intended goal of preventing disease?
This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and
chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune
suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on
the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines
Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on
the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at
the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts
and potentially lethal effects.
See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any
type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely
misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human
health.
******************************************************************************
Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how
bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how
directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning
and prevents future infections?
8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a
vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have
the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of
humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural
immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal
aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the
bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result,
the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system
and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the
individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment
which continue to assault the immune system.
Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating
through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The
ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without
knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed
target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting
at what was, not what is!
Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one
flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and
ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses
of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.
I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or
scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these
questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the
above questions:
- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped
- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the
question.
- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical
arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over
again.
Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in
an open mainstream venue.
Jason
<nos...@bt.com> wrote:
The reality is that some vaccines have prevented millions of people from
developing terrible diseases such as polio (poliomyelitis). Polio went
from MAJOR public health problem to a minor one in very short time. The
reason is because of the Salk Vaccine. Smallpox is another example of a
disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.
Mark Probert
> In article <FaCdndKRR8KyHXHXnZ2dnUVZ8oedn...@bt.com>, "john"
>
> <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
John Scumamore claims that polio is still around but is called other
things.
Smallpox is another example of a
> disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.-
Actually, smallpox has been eradicated.
dr_jeff
> http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml
>
>
> 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
>
> Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> with the following 9 questions.
>
>
> Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> in scientific and medical circles.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> vaccines?
Double-blind study comparing the immunogenicity of a licensed
DTwPHib-CRM197 conjugate vaccine (Quattvaxem™) with three
investigational, liquid formulations using lower doses of Hib-CRM197
conjugate. Eda Tamma, Alessandra Veroneseb, Mario Contornic, Sirli
Meristea, Pantaleo Naccib, Corresponding Author Contact Information,
E-mail The Corresponding Author and Simonetta Vivianib. Vaccine
Volume 23, Issue 14, 25 February 2005, Pages 1715-1719.
We performed a double-blind clinical study to evaluate the safety and
immunogenicity of four formulations of a DTwPHib full liquid vaccine,
three of which contained fractional doses of the 10 μg-dose of
CRM197-Hib conjugate vaccine.
A total of 261 infants were enrolled and randomised to receive at 3, 4
and 5 months of age, in a double-blind fashion, one of the four DTwPHib
vaccine formulations containing 10, 5, 2.5 or 1.25 μg of CRM197-Hib
conjugate. Post-immunization reactions were similar in the four vaccine
groups, they were mild, transient and resolved without sequelae. The
seroconversion rates to anti-PRP titres ≥ 0.15 μg/mL were 100%, 98%, 97%
and 98% in the groups 10, 5, 2.5 and 1.25 μg, respectively. The
seroconversion rates to anti-PRP titres ≥1 μg/mL were 95%, 97%, 88% and
90%, again respectively. Anti-PRP GMTs were 18, 17, 7.82 and 6.94 μg/mL,
respectively. All subjects were protected against tetanus and
diphtheria, and >80% seroconverted to pertussis.
High, and similar, levels of anti-PRP GMTs were elicited by the
formulations with 10 and 5 μg of CRM197-Hib conjugate.
Although the formulations with 2.5 and 1.25 μg of CRM197-Hib elicited
lower levels of anti-PRP GMTs, they were immunogenic and are possible
candidates for further development.
Keywords: Combined vaccines; Fractional doses Hib vaccine; DTwPHib full
liquid vaccine
> 2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study
> which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Varicella Vaccine
Robert P. Wise, MD, MPH; Marcel E. Salive, MD, MPH; M. Miles Braun, MD,
MPH; Gina Terracciano Mootrey, DO, MPH; Jane F. Seward, MBBS, MPH; Lisa
G. Rider, MD; Philip R. Krause, MD
JAMA. 2000;284:1271-1279.
Context Since its licensure in 1995, the extensive use of varicella
vaccine and close surveillance of the associated anecdotal reports of
suspected adverse effects provide the opportunity to detect potential
risks not observed before licensure because of the relatively small
sample size and other limitations of clinical trials.
Objectives To detect potential hazards, including rare events,
associated with varicella vaccine, and to assess case reports for
clinical and epidemiological implications.
Design and Setting Postlicensure case-series study of suspected vaccine
adverse events reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) from March 17, 1995, through July 25, 1998.
Main Outcome Measures Numbers of reported adverse events, proportions,
and reporting rates (reports per 100,000 doses distributed).
Results VAERS received 6574 case reports of adverse events in
recipients of varicella vaccine, a rate of 67.5 reports per 100,000
doses sold. Approximately 4% of reports described serious adverse
events, including 14 deaths. The most frequently reported adverse events
were rashes, possible vaccine failures, and injection site reactions.
Misinterpretation of varicella serology after vaccination appeared to
account for 17% of reports of possible vaccine failures. Among 251
patients with herpes zoster, 14 had the vaccine strain of varicella
zoster virus (VZV), while 12 had the wild-type virus. None of 30
anaphylaxis cases was fatal. An immunodeficient patient with pneumonia
had the vaccine strain of VZV in a lung biopsy. Pregnant women
occasionally received varicella vaccine through confusion with varicella
zoster immunoglobulin. Although the role of varicella vaccine remained
unproven in most serious adverse event reports, there were a few
positive rechallenge reports and consistency of many cases with
syndromes recognized as complications of natural varicella.
Conclusion Most of the reported adverse events associated with
varicella vaccine are minor, and serious risks appear to be rare. We
could not confirm a vaccine etiology for most of the reported serious
events; several will require further study to clarify whether varicella
vaccine plays a role. Education is needed to ensure appropriate use of
varicella serologic assays and to eliminate confusion between varicella
vaccine and varicella zoster immunoglobulin.
And
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal:
December 1999 - Volume 18 - Issue 12 - pp 1041-1046
Original Studies
Postmarketing evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of varicella
vaccine
BLACK, STEVEN MD; SHINEFIELD, HENRY MD; RAY, PAULA MS; LEWIS, EDWIN MS;
HANSEN, JOHN; SCHWALBE, JOAN MS; COPLAN, PAUL SCD; SHARRAR, ROBERT MD,
MSC; GUESS, HARRY MD, PHD
Collapse Box
Abstract
Background. The Oka strain of live attenuated varicella virus was
licensed for use in healthy children in the United States in March,
1995. We report a postmarketing evaluation of the short term safety of
this vaccine within Kaiser Permanente.
Methods. After licensure varicella vaccination was introduced into the
preventive care program of the Northern California Kaiser Permanente
Medical Care Program. Potential adverse events after vaccination with
varicella vaccine were identified from automated clinical databases of
hospitalizations, emergency room visits and clinic visits. Deaths were
identified from automated clinical databases at Kaiser as well as from
the State death records for California. To evaluate safety, rates of
diagnosis-specific events in the risk periods were compared with the
rates of such diagnosis-specific events in two self control and one
historical control period.
Results. During the study period of April 1, 1995, to December 31, 1996,
a total of 89 753 adults and children received varicella vaccine. A
total of 3200 relative risks were calculated, and of these 5 hospital
diagnostic categories, 9 emergency visit diagnostic categories and 30
outpatient diagnostic categories demonstrated at least 1 relative risk
with a P value of <0.05 in 1 or more age groups and in comparisons with
1 control period or more. The p value for these tests was not adjusted
for multiple comparisons. Of these categories 14 demonstrated an
increased risk either in more than 1 age group or against more than 1
comparison group. These categories included elective procedures, febrile
seizure, febrile illness, well child, acute gastroenteritis, varicella,
congenital anomaly, "rule out sepsis," trauma, viral syndrome, apnea,
back pain, congenital valvular heart disease and vision evaluation for
glasses. Of these the outcomes of elective procedure, congenital
anomaly, congenital valvular heart disease, well child and vision
evaluation for glasses were judged not to have a biologically plausible
association with vaccination. A second diagnostic grouping included
febrile illness, viral illness, febrile seizure and "rule out sepsis."
In an analysis of these events which adjusted for the concomitant
administration of M-M-RII vaccine, none of the associations was
statistically associated with receipt of varicella vaccine. The
diagnostic category of "rule out sepsis" still had a relative risk of
1.95 with P = 0.02. None of the children in the "rule out sepsis"
category had positive bacteriologic cultures from any other normally
sterile site. Because of the large number of gastroenteritis cases, we
reviewed a random sample of 100 exposed and 100 unexposed cases. From
this review no consistent time association or clustering of any of these
events was seen in the exposed follow-up time interval. Only
gastroenteritis and negative evaluations for sepsis were thought to be
possibly associated with receipt of varicella vaccine. Although there
was a statistically significant increased risk over the entire 30
day-period, there was no clustering of these events within the 30-day
window.
Conclusion. In this study population of 89 753 children and adults, the
varicella vaccine (Oka strain, Merck) appeared to have a favorable
safety profile. In addition rates of varicella-like rash and of
breakthrough cases were both low and consistent with the rates observed
in prelicensure studies.
> 3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove
> that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was
> attributable to inoculation of population
> 4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of
> vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
> pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism
> and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine
> study?
Studies like the ones above. You can learn how vaccines work at the
library by reading basic immunology textbooks. You can do this on the
internet, too.
> One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of
> any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health
> agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
> pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
What does pharmacokinetifc mean? And why are pharmacokinetic properties
of vaccines so important?
> There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of
> vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or
> achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to
> human health).
I disagree. See above.
> There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have
> objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect
> on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
>
> Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
> effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
> mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address
> those.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of
> vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for
> use in humans.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> 5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human
> health and prevents disease?
It helps the vaccine work better. The doses used are so small that they
do not pose a danger. Even oxygen is a neurotoxin. Doses matter.
> 6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits
> of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the
> intended goal of preventing disease?
How many people died from small pox last year?
> This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
> established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and
> chemical additives in vaccines damage cells.
In tissue culture at higher doses than used in humans. They don't show
that any chemical in vaccines are a danger in the doses used.
> Neurotoxicity,
Is non-existant with vaccines.
> immune
> suppression,
Actually, it is immune enhancement with vaccines.
> immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
> proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on
> the human body.
Not from vaccines. Stop your fear mongering.
> See a list of chemicals in vaccines
>
> Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on
> the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at
> the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts
> and potentially lethal effects.
>
> See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
>
> Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any
> type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely
> misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human
> health.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
> vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
Actually, it is well established. That's how the immune system works.
Try taking immunology 101 at you local college or get a immunology textbook.
> 7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how
> bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how
> directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning
> and prevents future infections?
Vaccines aren't injected into the blood stream. Vaccines cause
antibodies to be made, which are released into the bloodstream. And, if
you don't bypass the mucus membranes, the immune system will not see the
vaccine and be able to respond.
> 8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a
> vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
They don't.
> 9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have
> the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
They target key proteins or proteins or other antigens that don't change
much between differnet strains.
Just like a person who is exposed to one strain of the flu is often has
some or even total immunity to some other strains of the flu.
jeff
>
> All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of
> humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural
> immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal
> aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the
> bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself.
This is utter nonsense.
> As a result,
> the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system
> and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the
> individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment
> which continue to assault the immune system.
>
>
> Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating
> through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The
> ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without
> knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed
> target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting
> at what was, not what is!
>
> Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one
> flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and
> ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses
> of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.
>
> I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or
> scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these
> questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the
> above questions:
Actually, you just have encountered one who answered all nine.
> - They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped
>
> - They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the
> question.
>
> - They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical
> arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over
> again.
>
> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in
> an open mainstream venue.
>
>
I did.
Have a lovely day. Unfortunately, thanks to assholes who spread lies
like yours, many people won't be protected against deadly diseases and
some will die.
Jeff
Mark Probert
> http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
>
> Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> with the following 9 questions.
>
> Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> in scientific and medical circles.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> vaccines?
http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/14/15269/projects/ch12_salk/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
1952 The United States reports 57,628 polio cases -- the worst U.S.
epidemic on record.
-- Dr. Salk and his colleagues develop a potentially safe, injectable
vaccine against polio. Nearly 15,000 Pittsburgh-area subjects, mostly
children, receive the vaccine in pilot trials.
-- Salk's former mentor, Dr. Thomas Francis, designs, directs and
evaluates field trials of the polio vaccine. Unprecedented in their
scope and size, the trials involve around 1.8 million children from
the United States, Canada and Finland. They are among the first to use
the double-blind process that has since become standard.
If your idiot writer could not even get the first one right, why
bother to continue?
DisMISSED!
john
"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-3110091244030001@67-150-
>
> The reality is that some vaccines have prevented millions of people from
> developing terrible diseases such as polio (poliomyelitis). Polio went
> from MAJOR public health problem to a minor one in very short time. The
> reason is because of the Salk Vaccine. Smallpox is another example of a
> disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.
>
>
That's just bollocks
see smallpox http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox.html
polio http://www.whale.to/v/polio2.htm
Go to your medical library, and ask to see the United States Polio
Surveillance Unit's bulletins, from 1955 to 1970.
They will be listed as "missing".
Every single medical library in USA, that someone checked out for me,
and New Zealand (and possible other countries) has them listed as "missing".
There is only one place you can see them, as far as I know, and that is
in the AMA library, and they are listed as having top security clearance
requirements to see, according to someone who tried to access them.
Why might this be? When he was alive, Dr Ratner had copies of them at
his home. He gave me many of the years' data I wanted. They clearly showed
that from the inception of the SALK vaccine, to it's discontinuation, the
vaccine had MINUS efficacy and was actually causing more polio in the
vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
Any studious person looking at Government stats in retrospect, would be
able to easily see that the polical and media canonization of SALK and his
vaccine was a mirage of duplicity upon duplicity.------Hilary Butler -[2009
April] Olmsted on Autism: Hopkins Loses Early Case File
dr_jeff
<...>
> John Scumamore claims that polio is still around but is called other
> things.
Actually, it is confined to Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Thanks
to vaccines, polio is no longer in the western hemisphere, Europe and
most of Asia.
john
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
No proper control
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
Efficacy based on antibody fraud http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
dr_jeff
study of the rotavirus vaccine. So you're wrong.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > John Scumamore claims that polio is still around but is called other
> > things.
>
> Actually, it is confined to Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Thanks
> to vaccines, polio is no longer in the western hemisphere, Europe and
> most of Asia.
Agreed. Reads John's post where he proves me correct.
>
>
>
> > Smallpox is another example of a
> >> disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.-
>
> > Actually, smallpox has been eradicated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Parry
> someone checked out for me,
> according to someone who tried to access them.
Wow - credibility.
Jan Drew
> On Oct 31, 4:44�pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <FaCdndKRR8KyHXHXnZ2dnUVZ8oedn...@bt.com>, "john"
>
> > <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > > vaccines?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study
> > > which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove
> > > that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was
> > > attributable to inoculation of populations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of
> > > vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
> > > pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism
> > > and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine
> > > study?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of
> > > any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health
> > > agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
> > > pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
>
> > > There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of
> > > vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or
> > > achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to
> > > human health).
>
> > > There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have
> > > objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect
> > > on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
>
> > > Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
> > > effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
> > > mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address
> > > those.
>
> > > ***************************************************************************��***
>
> > > Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of
> > > vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for
> > > use in humans.
>
> > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > 5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> > > injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human
> > > health and prevents disease?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits
> > > of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the
> > > intended goal of preventing disease?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
> > > established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and
> > > chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune
> > > suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
> > > proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on
> > > the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines
>
> > > Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on
> > > the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at
> > > the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts
> > > and potentially lethal effects.
>
> > > See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
>
> > > Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any
> > > type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely
> > > misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human
> > > health.
>
> > > ***************************************************************************��***
>
> > > Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
> > > vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
>
> > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > 7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how
> > > bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how
> > > directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning
> > > and prevents future infections?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a
> > > vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> > > a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have
> > > the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a single answer. Hmmmm.
>
> John Scumamore
Ooops, this thread is not about John.
Can't answer. No surprise there.
Mark Probert
> On Oct 31, 3:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 4:44 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article <FaCdndKRR8KyHXHXnZ2dnUVZ8oedn...@bt.com>, "john"
>
> > > <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > > > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > > > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > > > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > > > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > > > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > > > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > > > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > > > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > > > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > > > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > > > vaccines?
>
>
>
>
> > > > 2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study
> > > > which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
>
>
> > > > 3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove
> > > > that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was
> > > > attributable to inoculation of populations?
>
>
> > > > 4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of
> > > > vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
> > > > pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism
> > > > and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine
> > > > study?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of
> > > > any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health
> > > > agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
> > > > pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
>
> > > > There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of
> > > > vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or
> > > > achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to
> > > > human health).
>
> > > > There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have
> > > > objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect
> > > > on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
>
> > > > Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
> > > > effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
> > > > mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address
> > > > those.
>
> > > > *************************************************************************** ***
>
> > > > Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of
> > > > vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for
> > > > use in humans.
>
> > > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > > 5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> > > > injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human
> > > > health and prevents disease?
>
>
>
>
> > > > 6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits
> > > > of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the
> > > > intended goal of preventing disease?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
> > > > established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and
> > > > chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune
> > > > suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
> > > > proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on
> > > > the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines
>
> > > > Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on
> > > > the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at
> > > > the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts
> > > > and potentially lethal effects.
>
> > > > See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
>
> > > > Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any
> > > > type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely
> > > > misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human
> > > > health.
>
> > > > *************************************************************************** ***
>
> > > > Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
> > > > vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
>
> > > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > > 7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how
> > > > bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how
> > > > directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning
> > > > and prevents future infections?
>
>
> > > > 8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a
> > > > vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
>
>
>
>
> > > > 9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how
> > > > a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have
> > > > the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
>
There was one answer and it disproved their fundamental concept so
strongly that the rest of the shit had to be deleted.
Of course, you left out my answer.
That makes you a liar.
>
>
>
> > John Scumamore
>
> Ooops, this thread is not about John.
>
> Can't answer. No surprise there.-
Did answer and you did not understand it. No suprise there. You have
trouble understanding Dick & Jane,.
Oh, and this thread is now about you and John.
Jan Drew
> john wrote:
> >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > vaccines?
>
> Double-blind study comparing the immunogenicity of a licensed
> DTwPHib-CRM197 conjugate vaccine (Quattvaxem™) with three
> investigational, liquid formulations using lower doses of Hib-CRM197
> conjugate. Eda Tamma, Alessandra Veroneseb, Mario Contornic, Sirli
> Meristea, Pantaleo Naccib, Corresponding Author Contact Information,
> E-mail The Corresponding Author and Simonetta Vivianib.
Who? Where did you not dr--find that name?
JAMA=Organized medicine liars.
By whom?
By Whom??
In this study population of 89 753 children and adults, the
> varicella vaccine (Oka strain, Merck) appeared to have a favorable
> safety profile. In addition rates of varicella-like rash and of
> breakthrough cases were both low and consistent with the rates observed
> in prelicensure studies.
Merck--what a joke.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18803138
>
> > 3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove
> > that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was
> > attributable to inoculation of population
>
> http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/22/CDC-Vaccine-reduces-rotavir...
>
> > 4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of
> > vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
> > pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism
> > and excretion of
I see not dr--did not go past question 4.
Neither did he get anything correct.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140,000 for CDC fraud. (0.35 seconds)
Dr. Viviani received a medicine and surgery degree from Siena
University as well as postgraduate degrees in public health and
laboratory. She holds a two-year postgraduate training degree in field
epidemiology from the CDC and the Istituto Superiore di Sanità.
Did you mean Simonetta Viviani
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18803138
Pharmaceutical giant Merck has agreed to pay more than $670 million to
settle claims it overcharged the government for drugs and bribed
doctors to prescribe its drugs. It's one of the biggest health care
fraud settlements ever.
Jan Drew
> On Oct 31, 2:21�pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > vaccines?
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
>
> 1952 The United States reports 57,628 polio cases -- the worst U.S.
> epidemic on record.
>
> -- Dr. Salk and his colleagues develop a potentially safe, injectable
> vaccine against polio. Nearly 15,000 Pittsburgh-area subjects, mostly
> children, receive the vaccine in pilot trials.
>
> -- Salk's former mentor, Dr. Thomas Francis, designs, directs and
> evaluates field trials of the polio vaccine. Unprecedented in their
> scope and size, the trials involve around 1.8 million children from
> the United States, Canada and Finland. They are among the first to use
> the double-blind process that has since become standard.
>
> If your idiot writer could not even get the first one right, why
> bother to continue?
>
Mark Probert
Thank you, Jan. This is such a good post, it needed an Encore!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jan Drew
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > vaccines?
>
Hmmm. This is not a double-blind placebo controlled study that proved
the question John asked.
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
Neither is that.
>
> 1952 The United States reports 57,628 polio cases -- the worst U.S.
> epidemic on record.
>
> -- Dr. Salk and his colleagues develop a potentially safe, injectable
> vaccine against polio. Nearly 15,000 Pittsburgh-area subjects, mostly
> children, receive the vaccine in pilot trials.
Read the words trials. This is not what John listed.
>
Neither is this thread about Polio
>
> DisMISSED!
You are indeed.
Go to your room.
Jan Drew
>
> <...>
>
Jan Drew
> john wrote:
> > "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > No proper control
> >http://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
> > Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
>
> study of the rotavirus vaccine. So you're wrong.
Massachusetts Medical Society
AMA= organized medicine.
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=32094&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,600 for Massachusetts Medical Society AMA.
So, there is the truth.
Jan Drew
Mark Probert wrote:
<...>
Jan Drew
NO credibility.
Mark Probert
> On Oct 31, 3:52 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 2:21 pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> > > 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
> > > Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called
> > > "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the
> > > effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical
> > > and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched
> > > with the following 9 questions.
>
> > > Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements,
> > > effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven
> > > in scientific and medical circles.
>
> > > Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> > > 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> > > placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of
> > > vaccines?
>
> >http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/14/15269/projects/ch12_salk/index...
>
> Hmmm. This is not a double-blind placebo controlled study that proved
> the question John asked.
It surely was. I was part of it. I recall going to the gym and lining
up one kid on the right, one on the left.
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
>
> Neither is that.
It is a discussion of the same Salk trial, a/k/a study.
>
>
> > 1952 The United States reports 57,628 polio cases -- the worst U.S.
> > epidemic on record.
>
> > -- Dr. Salk and his colleagues develop a potentially safe, injectable
> > vaccine against polio. Nearly 15,000 Pittsburgh-area subjects, mostly
> > children, receive the vaccine in pilot trials.
>
> Read the words trials. This is not what John listed.
Trials is an older term for study. It was double blind, and it prove
efficacy of the vaccine.
>
> Neither is this thread about Polio
OMG, are you really this stupid? I find it hard to believe that any
person who can toilet themselves is this stupid. Please tell me it is
an act.
premy2u
> In article <FaCdndKRR8KyHXHXnZ2dnUVZ8oedn...@bt.com>, "john"
>
> <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> The reality is that some vaccines have prevented millions of people from
> developing terrible diseases such as polio (poliomyelitis). Polio went
> from MAJOR public health problem to a minor one in very short time. The
> reason is because of the Salk Vaccine. Smallpox is another example of a
> disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.
...
Regarding Polio:
1997: Polio is not eradicated by vaccination, but likely lurks behind
a disease redefinition
and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic
meningitis.......According to one of the
1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of
viral meningitis per
year in the United States alone.! That's where it is thought that
30,000 - 50,000 cases of
polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination.
"Today, various other forms of the word "polio" are still used to
describe the effects of
poisoning, though usually with regard to paralysis in animals. A
search of Medline
("polio" and "poison") finds about 45 contemporary articles where
poisoning causality is
attributed to polio. The terminology found was:
"polioencephalomalacia",
27
"poliomyelomalacia", "polyradiculoneuritis", "neurological picture
similar to that of
poliomyelitis", "polioencephalomyelomalacia", "lumbal
poliomyelomalacia",
"cerebrocortical necrosis (polioencephalomalacia)", "Lead poisoning in
grey-headed
fruit bats (Pteropus poliocephalus)", "multifocal-poliomyelomalacia",
"spinal
poliomalacia", "Polio and high-sulfate diets", "atypical porcine
enterovirus
encephalomyelitis: possible interraction between enteroviruses and
arsenicals",
"polioencephalomalacia and photosensitization associated with kochia
scoparia
consumption in range cattle", "bovine polioencephalomalacia." Viral or
aseptic
meningitis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS), Chinese paralytic
syndrome, chronic
fatigue syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis,
spinal apoplexy,
inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever,
bilious remittent fever,
ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis! (Jim West,
Health and
Research Publications, http://www.geocities.com/harpub/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
taken from:
"How to Predict Epidemics"
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL 60607
Email: aman...@uic.edu
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
> On Oct 31, 7:53�pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Jan. This is such a good post, it needed an Encore!
No, I didn't post that. You did.
Jan Drew
> On Oct 31, 2:21�pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtm
>
Jan Drew
<....>
Jerry
> The reality is that some vaccines have prevented millions of people from
> developing terrible diseases such as polio (poliomyelitis). Polio went
> from MAJOR public health problem to a minor one in very short time. The
> reason is because of the Salk Vaccine. Smallpox is another example of a
> disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.
Can you provide evidence that the vaccine is what got rid of smallpox?
Or is that just what most people believe and it must be true because
most people believe it?
According to the evidence in this book ...
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean3.html
smallpox was on the decline before the vaccine was started. And there
is no evidence from the statistics that the vaccine helped.
Don't blame me; I'm just looking at the statistical evidence. You can
look it up yourself.
Peter Bowditch
>Polio is not eradicated by vaccination, but likely lurks behind
>a disease redefinition
>and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic
>meningitis
This would be funny if it wasn't so fucking stupid and pathetic.
When are the anti-vaccination liars going to get a new set of lies? We
are tired of hearing the old ones.
--
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
Mark Probert
Correct. The post you snipped needed an Encore!
Jan Drew
Thanks, for admiting you lied,
Mark Probert
I did not lie. However, being the devious demon (DD) you are, you
snipped what I said, destroyed the context, and then allege that I
lie. That, DD, is lieing.
AusShane
> Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
"Whale's Law: If you reference whale.to in any argument - you have
just lost. "
AusShane
Sorry a better reference -if you wish to cite the opinions of a pig
farmer as scientific evidence.
Scopie's Law states:
“ In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as
a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
laughed out of the room.
earthaw...@netzero.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> taken from:
> "How to Predict Epidemics"
> Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
> Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
> Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> Chicago, IL 60607
This points to a nifty trick used by "health" authorities on behalf of
the drug makers: Redefinition.
PeterB - Original
> On Nov 28, 2:11 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:15 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > > "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > No proper controlhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
> > > Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
>
> > "Whale's Law: If you reference whale.to in any argument - you
> > have just lost. "
Meaning you cannot cite published science addressing vaccine safety
and resort to attacking those who do.
> Sorry a better reference -if you wish to cite the opinions of a pig
> farmer as scientific evidence.
John is not a pig farmer and his website presents a wide range of
scientific evidence and dialogue by real scientists on the hazards of
vaccine. If you have a different opinion, that's fine, but attacking
those of us who do what you cannot do (i.e, citing published
evidence), only proves how desperate you are.
> Scopie's Law states:
> “ In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as
> a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
> laughed out of the room.
Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?
Mark Probert
Why should anyone take your word that vaccines are dangerous and
unpredictable? You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.
I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion as being factual.
PeterB - Original
They shouldn't. I cite my articles with published science because
that is what credible people do. You are not credible and so you do
not.
> You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
> when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.
Your poison the well tactics are well known here. When you say
something is commonly accepted, I fear the sky must no longer be
blue.
> I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
> Zion as being factual.
Sorry, never heard of it.
Mark Probert
From the anti-vaccination groups, and Dog Anus.
with published science because
> that is what credible people do. You are not credible and so you do
> not.
In your dreams.
> > You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
> > when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.
>
> Your poison the well tactics are well known here.
What a crock of shit. You are the one who poisons the well with you
moronic "warning post".
When you say
> something is commonly accepted, I fear the sky must no longer be
> blue.
For you it is not.
>
> > I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
> > Zion as being factual.
>
> Sorry, never heard of it.
Well, it is on the whale-shit website, and you accept everything else
there.
Jan Drew
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-
called
"vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify
the
effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous
historical
and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily
squelched
with the following 9 questions.
Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of
achievements,
effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and
proven
in scientific and medical circles.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness
of
vaccines?
2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY
study
which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can
prove
that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in
history was
attributable to inoculation of populations?
4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism
of
vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution,
metabolism
and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any
vaccine
study?
One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential
of
any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and
health
agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history
of
vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness
or
achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage
to
human health).
There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which
have
objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential
effect
on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't
address
those.
***************************************************************************�***
Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture
of
vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them
unsafe for
use in humans.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how
injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to
human
health and prevents disease?
6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the
benefits
of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for
the
intended goal of preventing disease?
This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the
preservatives and
chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune
suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been
observed on
the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines
Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have
on
the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is
look at
the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients,
alerts
and potentially lethal effects.
See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject
any
type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is
completely
misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding
human
health.
***************************************************************************�***
Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
Fact: The claim is completely false.
7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how
bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous
and how
directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune
functioning
and prevents future infections?
8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how a
vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how
a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does
not have
the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed
for?
All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory
tract of
humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates
natural
immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this
mucosal
aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the
bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a
result,
the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune
system
and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as
the
individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the
environment
which continue to assault the immune system.
Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue
circulating
through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The
ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain
without
knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a
fixed
target that has already been moved from its location. You would be
shooting
at what was, not what is!
Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period
of one
flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and
ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune
defenses
of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.
I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically
or
scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of
these
questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any
of the
above questions:
- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped
- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain
to the
question.
- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical
arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and
over
again.
Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
questions in
an open mainstream venue.
Mark Probert
> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
> questions in
> an open mainstream venue.
Because they are stoopid questions, the ones that Jan Drew does not
have a clue about.
dr_jeff
> http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...
>
> 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
>
>
> Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-
> called
> "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify
> the
> effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous
> historical
> and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily
> squelched
> with the following 9 questions.
>
>
> Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of
> achievements,
> effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and
> proven
> in scientific and medical circles.
>
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
It is well known that the vaccine cause the immune system to make
antibodies against the antigens in the vaccines. The antibodies then are
able to attack the virus or bacteria that the vaccine are made against.
> 1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
> placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness
> of
> vaccines?
From a previous reply to John:
Double-blind study comparing the immunogenicity of a licensed
DTwPHib-CRM197 conjugate vaccine (Quattvaxem™) with three
investigational, liquid formulations using lower doses of Hib-CRM197
conjugate. Eda Tamma, Alessandra Veroneseb, Mario Contornic, Sirli
Meristea, Pantaleo Naccib, Corresponding Author Contact Information,
E-mail The Corresponding Author and Simonetta Vivianib. Vaccine
Volume 23, Issue 14, 25 February 2005, Pages 1715-1719.
We performed a double-blind clinical study to evaluate the safety and
immunogenicity of four formulations of a DTwPHib full liquid vaccine,
three of which contained fractional doses of the 10 μg-dose of
CRM197-Hib conjugate vaccine.
A total of 261 infants were enrolled and randomised to receive at 3, 4
and 5 months of age, in a double-blind fashion, one of the four DTwPHib
vaccine formulations containing 10, 5, 2.5 or 1.25 μg of CRM197-Hib
conjugate. Post-immunization reactions were similar in the four vaccine
groups, they were mild, transient and resolved without sequelae. The
seroconversion rates to anti-PRP titres ≥ 0.15 μg/mL were 100%, 98%, 97%
and 98% in the groups 10, 5, 2.5 and 1.25 μg, respectively. The
seroconversion rates to anti-PRP titres ≥1 μg/mL were 95%, 97%, 88% and
90%, again respectively. Anti-PRP GMTs were 18, 17, 7.82 and 6.94 μg/mL,
respectively. All subjects were protected against tetanus and
diphtheria, and >80% seroconverted to pertussis.
High, and similar, levels of anti-PRP GMTs were elicited by the
formulations with 10 and 5 μg of CRM197-Hib conjugate.
Although the formulations with 2.5 and 1.25 μg of CRM197-Hib elicited
lower levels of anti-PRP GMTs, they were immunogenic and are possible
candidates for further development.
Keywords: Combined vaccines; Fractional doses Hib vaccine; DTwPHib full
liquid vaccine
> 2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY
study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Varicella Vaccine
Robert P. Wise, MD, MPH; Marcel E. Salive, MD, MPH; M. Miles Braun, MD,
MPH; Gina Terracciano Mootrey, DO, MPH; Jane F. Seward, MBBS, MPH; Lisa
G. Rider, MD; Philip R. Krause, MD
JAMA. 2000;284:1271-1279.
Context Since its licensure in 1995, the extensive use of varicella
vaccine and close surveillance of the associated anecdotal reports of
suspected adverse effects provide the opportunity to detect potential
risks not observed before licensure because of the relatively small
sample size and other limitations of clinical trials.
Objectives To detect potential hazards, including rare events,
associated with varicella vaccine, and to assess case reports for
clinical and epidemiological implications.
Design and Setting Postlicensure case-series study of suspected vaccine
adverse events reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) from March 17, 1995, through July 25, 1998.
Main Outcome Measures Numbers of reported adverse events, proportions,
and reporting rates (reports per 100,000 doses distributed).
Results VAERS received 6574 case reports of adverse events in
recipients of varicella vaccine, a rate of 67.5 reports per 100,000
doses sold. Approximately 4% of reports described serious adverse
events, including 14 deaths. The most frequently reported adverse events
were rashes, possible vaccine failures, and injection site reactions.
Misinterpretation of varicella serology after vaccination appeared to
account for 17% of reports of possible vaccine failures. Among 251
patients with herpes zoster, 14 had the vaccine strain of varicella
zoster virus (VZV), while 12 had the wild-type virus. None of 30
anaphylaxis cases was fatal. An immunodeficient patient with pneumonia
had the vaccine strain of VZV in a lung biopsy. Pregnant women
occasionally received varicella vaccine through confusion with varicella
zoster immunoglobulin. Although the role of varicella vaccine remained
unproven in most serious adverse event reports, there were a few
positive rechallenge reports and consistency of many cases with
syndromes recognized as complications of natural varicella.
Conclusion Most of the reported adverse events associated with
varicella vaccine are minor, and serious risks appear to be rare. We
could not confirm a vaccine etiology for most of the reported serious
events; several will require further study to clarify whether varicella
vaccine plays a role. Education is needed to ensure appropriate use of
varicella serologic assays and to eliminate confusion between varicella
vaccine and varicella zoster immunoglobulin.
And
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal:
December 1999 - Volume 18 - Issue 12 - pp 1041-1046
Original Studies
Postmarketing evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of varicella
vaccine
BLACK, STEVEN MD; SHINEFIELD, HENRY MD; RAY, PAULA MS; LEWIS, EDWIN MS;
HANSEN, JOHN; SCHWALBE, JOAN MS; COPLAN, PAUL SCD; SHARRAR, ROBERT MD,
MSC; GUESS, HARRY MD, PHD
Collapse Box
Abstract
Background. The Oka strain of live attenuated varicella virus was
licensed for use in healthy children in the United States in March,
1995. We report a postmarketing evaluation of the short term safety of
this vaccine within Kaiser Permanente.
Methods. After licensure varicella vaccination was introduced into the
preventive care program of the Northern California Kaiser Permanente
Medical Care Program. Potential adverse events after vaccination with
varicella vaccine were identified from automated clinical databases of
hospitalizations, emergency room visits and clinic visits. Deaths were
identified from automated clinical databases at Kaiser as well as from
the State death records for California. To evaluate safety, rates of
diagnosis-specific events in the risk periods were compared with the
rates of such diagnosis-specific events in two self control and one
historical control period.
Results. During the study period of April 1, 1995, to December 31, 1996,
a total of 89 753 adults and children received varicella vaccine. A
total of 3200 relative risks were calculated, and of these 5 hospital
diagnostic categories, 9 emergency visit diagnostic categories and 30
outpatient diagnostic categories demonstrated at least 1 relative risk
with a P value of <0.05 in 1 or more age groups and in comparisons with
1 control period or more. The p value for these tests was not adjusted
for multiple comparisons. Of these categories 14 demonstrated an
increased risk either in more than 1 age group or against more than 1
comparison group. These categories included elective procedures, febrile
seizure, febrile illness, well child, acute gastroenteritis, varicella,
congenital anomaly, "rule out sepsis," trauma, viral syndrome, apnea,
back pain, congenital valvular heart disease and vision evaluation for
glasses. Of these the outcomes of elective procedure, congenital
anomaly, congenital valvular heart disease, well child and vision
evaluation for glasses were judged not to have a biologically plausible
association with vaccination. A second diagnostic grouping included
febrile illness, viral illness, febrile seizure and "rule out sepsis."
In an analysis of these events which adjusted for the concomitant
administration of M-M-RII vaccine, none of the associations was
statistically associated with receipt of varicella vaccine. The
diagnostic category of "rule out sepsis" still had a relative risk of
1.95 with P = 0.02. None of the children in the "rule out sepsis"
category had positive bacteriologic cultures from any other normally
sterile site. Because of the large number of gastroenteritis cases, we
reviewed a random sample of 100 exposed and 100 unexposed cases. From
this review no consistent time association or clustering of any of these
events was seen in the exposed follow-up time interval. Only
gastroenteritis and negative evaluations for sepsis were thought to be
possibly associated with receipt of varicella vaccine. Although there
was a statistically significant increased risk over the entire 30
day-period, there was no clustering of these events within the 30-day
window.
Conclusion. In this study population of 89 753 children and adults, the
varicella vaccine (Oka strain, Merck) appeared to have a favorable
safety profile. In addition rates of varicella-like rash and of
breakthrough cases were both low and consistent with the rates observed
in prelicensure studies.
> 3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which
can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point
in history was attributable to inoculation of population
> 4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism
of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution,
metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed
in any vaccine study?
Studies like the ones above. You can learn how vaccines work at the
library by reading basic immunology textbooks. You can do this on the
internet, too.
> One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity
potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug
companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or
evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
What does pharmacokinetifc mean? And why are pharmacokinetic properties
of vaccines so important?
> There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the
history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety,
effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined
their damage to human health).
I disagree. See above.
> There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which
have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or
consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any part
of the world.
>
> Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address
those.
>
>
******************************************************************************
>
> Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture
of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them
unsafe for use in humans.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
>
> 5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial
to human health and prevents disease?
It helps the vaccine work better. The doses used are so small that they
do not pose a danger. Even oxygen is a neurotoxin. Doses matter.
> 6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the
benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human
health for the intended goal of preventing disease?
How many people died from small pox last year?
> This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives
and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells.
In tissue culture at higher doses than used in humans. They don't show
that any chemical in vaccines are a danger in the doses used.
> Neurotoxicity,
Is non-existant with vaccines.
> immune suppression,
Actually, it is immune enhancement with vaccines.
> immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation
are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body.
Not from vaccines. Stop your fear mongering.
> See a list of chemicals in vaccines
>
> Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines
have on the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do
is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact
ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.
>
> See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
>
> Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject
any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is
completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic
regarding human health.
>
>
******************************************************************************
>
> Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
>
> Fact: The claim is completely false.
Actually, it is well established. That's how the immune system works.
Try taking immunology 101 at you local college or get a immunology textbook.
> 7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous
and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune
functioning and prevents future infections?
Vaccines aren't injected into the blood stream. Vaccines cause
antibodies to be made, which are released into the bloodstream. And, if
you don't bypass the mucus membranes, the immune system will not see the
vaccine and be able to respond.
> 8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
They don't.
> 9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who
does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was
developed for?
They target key proteins or proteins or other antigens that don't change
much between differnet strains.
Just like a person who is exposed to one strain of the flu is often has
some or even total immunity to some other strains of the flu.
jeff
>
> All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory
tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which
initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa.
Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting
viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system
itself.
This is utter nonsense.
> As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated
by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further
grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens
and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.
>
>
> Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue
circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other
organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact
viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to
shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its
location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!
>
> Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period
of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant
and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune
defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.
>
> I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically
or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of
these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating
any of the above questions:
Actually, you just have encountered one who answered all nine.
> - They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped
>
> - They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain
to the question.
>
> - They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical
arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over
again.
>
> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
questions in an open mainstream venue.
>
>
I did.
Have a lovely day. Unfortunately, thanks to assholes who spread lies
like yours, many people won't be protected against deadly diseases and
some will die.
Jeff
PeterB - Original
Are you claiming that Beaglehole and the other authors I cite by name
are associated with any anti-vaccine outfits? Care to back that
up?
> with published science because
>
> > that is what credible people do. You are not credible and so you do
> > not.
>
> In your dreams.
You admitted it yourself. You reject published science that isn't
found in pubmed, then refuse to cite the very junk studies that might
agree with your promotion of vaccine because you know you won't be
able to defend them. At least as amusing, you refuse to name a single
book you have read that agrees with anything you say, which isn't so
surprising, since you don't actually say anything.
> > > You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
> > > when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.
>
> > Your poison the well tactics are well known here.
>
> What a crock of shit. You are the one who poisons the well with
> you moronic "warning post".
Descriptions of behaviour are not "poisoning the well." Your labeling
and name calling, however, is.
> When you say
>
> > something is commonly accepted, I fear the sky must no longer be
> > blue.
>
> For you it is not.
For me it is what it is.
> > > I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
> > > Zion as being factual.
>
> > Sorry, never heard of it.
>
> Well, it is on the whale-shit website, and you accept everything
> else there.
I accept what measures up to the evidence. You accept nothing but
myth and fairy tales.
Peter Bowditch
She also seems oblivious to the fact that the questions have been
answered on several occasions in several places.
Mark Probert
You sure need work on reading comprehension. I am stating that the
source of the article (HPA) cherry picked Beaglehole's quote and that
they are inherently anti-vaccination.
> > with published science because
>
> > > that is what credible people do. You are not credible and so you do
> > > not.
>
> > In your dreams.
>
> You admitted it yourself. You reject published science
Here ya go with your idiotsyncratic definitions. Being published in a
book is not published science. Being referenced on PubMed is.
that isn't
> found in pubmed, then refuse to cite the very junk studies
Why bother? From this statement, your so-called "mind" is already made
up. You reject anything that proves you wrong.
that might
> agree with your promotion of vaccine because you know you won't be
> able to defend them.
No, I know that citing anything to you is an utter waste of time, as
you play your asshole games, like you did above.
At least as amusing, you refuse to name a single
> book you have read that agrees with anything you say, which isn't so
> surprising, since you don't actually say anything.
Oh, I say a lot. It is about you, your tactics and your ilk.
> > > > You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
> > > > when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.
>
> > > Your poison the well tactics are well known here.
>
> > What a crock of shit. You are the one who poisons the well with
> > you moronic "warning post".
>
> Descriptions of behaviour are not "poisoning the well." Your labeling
> and name calling, however, is.
Wrong. Your warning post is classic poisoning the well.
>
> > When you say
>
> > > something is commonly accepted, I fear the sky must no longer be
> > > blue.
>
> > For you it is not.
>
> For me it is what it is.
>
> > > > I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
> > > > Zion as being factual.
>
> > > Sorry, never heard of it.
>
> > Well, it is on the whale-shit website, and you accept everything
> > else there.
>
> I accept what measures up to the evidence. You accept nothing but
> myth and fairy tales.-
You have that backwards.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 27, 11:22 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
> >> questions in
> >> an open mainstream venue.
>
> >Because they are stoopid questions, the ones that Jan Drew does not
> >have a clue about.
>
> She also seems oblivious to the fact that the questions have been
> answered on several occasions in several places.
That is the tactics of the anti-vac liar. They ask a question, get an
answer, and ask the same question a few weeks later as if they never
asked the question the first time.
Their questions are "loaded questions" and portray a false concept.
Like the questions asked here.
AusShane
>
> Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
> made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
> vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?
Oh I don't think so
1) I doubt I could do a better job of demolishing the credibility of
the website than the internet community has already done - hence why
scopies law came into being. See the interent community is a bit like
science its self regulating - the charlatons soon get called out - as
has happened to the other steaming piles of ordure answers in genesis
and the discovery institute, where rational people have taken the time
and trouble to debunk the lies and distortions. All that happens is
they shift the goalposts and use another fantastic approach - as you
do I believe we are on to aluminium in vaccines now as the 'deadly
neurotoxin ? This is not about evidence its about propaganda for an
insane ideological world view.
2) If I was ever foolish enough to waste the time and effort to do so
it wouldn't make any difference would it. The very fact that you are
even defending the website as a credible source tells me that it would
be a pointless exercise. You would simply come back with some other
distortion, delusion, quote mine or simple untruth and hold it up as
proof of the failure of science, at the same time simply ignoring any
factual evidence I may cite.
An american journalist recently summed it all up very succinctly. One
does not sit around listening to the village idiot, the world moves on
past him.
We all have better things to do than to debate junk science with
village idiots.
Mark Probert
This is an excellent analysis of Petey's tactics and demonstrates
precisely why debating him with studies and citations is pointless. To
do so, only gives him a platform for his pseudo-science.