Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
PeterB - Original
The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
graphically at http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html. Infectious
disease mortality declined dramatically prior to availability of most
vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and
R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in
disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
measures introduced for the control of these diseases. Whether
vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
to use of vaccine was profound. In one case, those declines occurred
without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita. If the vast majority of
declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. And that
is exactly what happened. The purported benefits of vaccine in
reducing rates of infection, or in conferring meaningful resistance to
disease, are therefore a fallacy built on these pre-existing declines
in the severity of those very diseases. Against a backdrop of limited
safety data and a history of serious, often fatal, vaccine side
effects,(1) the realization that vaccines are based on myth is
compelling.
It would seem obvious to most that public health policy should fully
assess the risk of any medical intervention and it's potential for
unintended consequences, yet this has rarely been the case. A lack of
published science on both vaccine effectiveness and safety has left
considerable doubt as to whether artificial immunization can safely
inoculate or accomplish real, as opposed to theoretical, disease
resistance. Whereas the success of drug development for the treatment
of various diseases in general has been rather mixed when measuring
real health outcomes, the history of vaccine development has been
almost absurdly tragic.(1) For instance, a string of vaccine failures
during earlier periods of population wide experimentation (a practice
that continues to this day) ultimately took the lives of at least two
hundred thousand people worldwide. Today, vaccines are regarded as
relatively safe, but in the absence of proper study demonstrating
this, ethical scientific conduct should discourage their use. The
premise for this argument in modern scientific circles is the
Precautionary Principle, which states that any intervention (medical
or otherwise) must be proven safe by those advocating its use.
Remarkably, the vaccine makers have managed to acquire waivers of
liability protecting them from legal recourse if and when the public
is harmed by vaccines. In the absence of valid safety data, such an
arrangement is immoral.
It is interesting to note that rates of infection, unlike measles
mortality, were never reliably assessed and were, in fact,
dramatically under reported to health agencies. According to Alfred
S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections of
Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a factor
of ten. So say the authors, "...prior to introduction of measles
vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the United
States every year, but 4 million children were born and essentially
all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that could only have
been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the mean true number
of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the infection rate was
ten times higher than was generally reported, meaning the true
mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is commonly
believed. It can be argued that vaccine research is based almost
entirely on theoretical science in the form of antibody titres,
community surveys and historical fallacies. Whereas artificial
immunization may inoculate a narrow band of phenotypes, it is not
equivalent to immunity and works unpredictably. In the absence of
meaningful safety data, therefore, vaccine remains outside the
boundaries of "evidence based medicine."
Note that, among 30 countries with childhood vaccination programs, the
one with the highest mortality rate for children under 5yrs of age is
the country with the largest number of childhood vaccines. That
country is the USA. Not surprisingly, childhood mortality rates in
countries with the LEAST number of vaccines in their early
immunization schedules are those with the LOWEST childhood mortality
rates.
[ref. http://www.generationrescue.org/documents/SPECIAL%20REPORT%20AUTISM%202.pdf]
(1) "Smallpox Vaccine: Does it Work?" published by Holistic Pediatric
Association.
"During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when smallpox
epidemics ran rampant, the introduction of smallpox vaccination was
often followed by an increased incidence of the disease. Many vaccine
critics accused the smallpox vaccine of precipitating these
epidemics. A disastrous smallpox epidemic occurred in England during
the period 1871-1873 at a time when the compulsory smallpox
vaccination law had resulted in nearly universal coverage. A Royal
Commission was appointed in 1889 to investigate the history of
vaccination in the United Kingdom. Evidence mounted that smallpox
epidemics increased dramatically after 1854, the year the compulsory
vaccination law went into effect. In the London epidemic of 1857-1859,
there were more than 14,000 deaths; in the 1863-1865 outbreak 20,000
deaths; and from 1871 to 1873 all of Europe was swept by the worst
smallpox epidemic in recorded history. In England and Wales alone,
45,000 people died of smallpox at a time when, according to official
estimates, 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated.
"When Japan started compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1872
the disease steadily increased each year. In 1892 more than 165,000
cases occurred with 30,000 deaths in a completely vaccinated
population. During the same time period Australia had no compulsory
vaccination laws, and only three deaths occurred from smallpox over a
15-year period.
"Germany adopted a compulsory vaccination law in 1834, and rigorously
enforced re-vaccinations. Yet during the period 1871-1872 there were
125,000 deaths from smallpox. In Berlin itself 17,000 cases of
smallpox occurred among the vaccinated population, of whom 2,240 were
under ten years of age, and of these vaccinated children 736 died.
"In the Philippines, global public health measures were instituted
when the United States began its occupation to establish a self-
reliant government in the early 1900s. The incidence of smallpox
steadily declined and the compulsory vaccine campaign was credited
with this dramatic reduction. However, in the years 1917 to 1919, the
Philippines experienced the worst epidemic of smallpox in the
country's history with over 160,000 cases and over 70,000 deaths in a
completely vaccinated population. Over 43,000 deaths from smallpox
occurred in 1919 alone. The entire population of the Philippines at
the time was only 11 million.
"Vaccine failures of this magnitude may have several causes. The
vaccine used could have been defective. During that period it was
difficult to verify what the vaccine actually contained. The vaccine
could have been contaminated with smallpox virus and actually caused
epidemics. Or vaccine critics may have been correct in asserting that
Jenner's cowpox vaccine, which is essentially the same vaccine used
today, simply did not work to prevent smallpox."
Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association
spicpussy
RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
thoughts ...
------------------------
"Is there a history lesson from the swine flu of '76?"
"Scientists look closely for side effects of vaccine after earlier
version caused outbreak of rare form of paralysis"
By David Brown
Saturday, November 28, 2009
AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE receive the H1N1 shot, an earlier vaccine is
casting a mysterious shadow over the attempt to immunize 200 million
people in the next few months.
A vaccine made in 1976 in response to a different strain of H1N1
influenza led to an outbreak of a rare form of paralysis. Of the 43
million people who were vaccinated, about 400 developed Guillain-Barre
syndrome (GBS), and 25 died.
Whether an equally unexpected surprise might be lurking in this year's
swine flu shot is a big -- although not publicly acknowledged --
question hanging over the current immunization effort. That
possibility is why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
routinely reports, as it did Wednesday, on whether any notable side
effects to the new vaccine have been discovered. (None have.)
Unlike today's bug, the 1976 virus never took off from where it
originated at an army base in New Jersey. With nothing to be gained
from vaccination, the widespread campaign was halted after less than
three months.
For the 15 years after the "swine flu affair," scientists sought to
nail down whether and how much the 1976 vaccine increased a person's
risk of GBS. Almost nothing, however, was done to figure out how and
why the flu shot had that effect. It's an oversight some public health
officials are coming to regret.
"We should have made an exhaustive attempt to understand what happened
from a biological standpoint," said Michael T. Osterholm, a physician
who heads the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Both the 1976 strain and the new H1N1 strain are closely related to
viruses carried by pigs, making some wonder whether that "swinishness"
makes their vaccines more likely to cause unusual effects.
"That is the right question to ask," said Peter Palese, an influenza
virologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "And I would
like to say that no one really knows."
Researchers stopped looking back at 1976, Osterholm said, when there
were no subsequent problems with flu vaccines. "After we had a couple
of seasons under our belt when there was no unusual risk to regular
flu vaccines, we just let it go," he said.
Today's H1N1 vaccine is made, tested and administered the same way the
seasonal flu vaccine is. There's no reason to think it's any more
dangerous than the regular flu shot, whose risk of serious side
effects is essentially zero.
But that was true of the 1976 vaccine, too.
A spike in cases?
Named after two French physicians who described it in 1916, Guillain-
Barre [GEE-yan bah-RAY] syndrome causes weakness and tingling that
starts in the legs, but over weeks can affect most of the body's
muscles. The symptoms occur because the insulation on the outside of
nerve fibers breaks down, damaging the normal conduction of impulses.
In normal times, GBS occurs at a rate of roughly 2 cases per 100,000
people per year. Although only about 5 percent die, up to a third
spend time in an intensive care unit on a ventilator before they get
better. Nearly a third still have some weakness three years later.
After the 1976 vaccination campaign was halted on Dec. 16 of that
year, much work went into figuring out whether the increase in GBS
cases was real, or just a random upward blip.
Careful counting in defined populations -- most important, the entire
states of Minnesota and Michigan -- proved beyond doubt that it was
real: The risk of developing the condition rose four- to seven-fold in
the six weeks after getting the swine flu shot. The number of cases
attributable to the vaccine ranged from 5 to 12 per million people
vaccinated.
Studies of vaccines before they go on the market have too few people
in them to uncover adverse events occurring at such very low
frequency. That's why the GBS risk was not detected in the testing of
the 1976 vaccine -- and why it would not be caught in this year's
testing, either.
Researchers looked for spikes in GBS among people vaccinated for flu
in subsequent seasons and did not find any. The only exceptions were
1992-93 and 1993-94. When those two seasons were combined, people
getting flu shots had a slightly higher risk of GBS -- about 1 extra
case per million. The conclusion was that 1976 was a fluke, unlikely
to happen again.
Comparing the vaccines
There's some evidence that the 1976 vaccine may have triggered GBS
through a mechanism known as molecular mimicry.
About two-thirds of cases of GBS arise after an intestinal or
respiratory infection (including flu). The biggest cause is a
bacterium responsible for food-borne illness, Campylobacter jejuni.
Campylobacter can stimulate the immune system to make antibodies
against a nerve-sheath substance called ganglioside, and that
presumably leads to the condition.
However, not all people with the syndrome have nerve-attacking
antibodies, and millions of people get Campylobacter infections
without getting GBS. So clearly there are unknown factors -- some
almost certainly genetic -- involved in the disease. The 1976 vaccine
may have triggered GBS in much the way that Campylobater does. The
evidence comes from experiments done by Irving Nachamkin, a
microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and published last
year.
Nachamkin had access to a few unopened vials of the 1976 vaccine,
which he tested for the presence of Campylobacter bacteria. He found
none, putting to rest the theory that the 1976 GBS cases were the
consequence of contaminated vaccine. He then injected the vaccine into
mice. All developed antibodies against GM1, a form of ganglioside.
"We were just as surprised as anyone when we found this," Nachamkin
said. "The real question is: Is it relevant to Guillain-Barre
syndrome?"
What's confusing is that animals injected with flu vaccines from 1991
and 2004 also developed the anti-GM1 antibodies ( as did some animals
infected with the even more distantly related H5N1 bird flu strain).
Furthermore, none developed muscle weakness. Researchers at CDC are
hunting down blood samples from people who got the 1976 vaccine to see
if they contain antibodies to ganglioside, or hold any other hints as
to what might have made that flu shot have that rare side effect.
Today, both the federal government's epidemiologists and pretty much
every neurologist in America have eyes wide open for cases of GBS.
As of last week, six cases of GBS in people who had gotten the H1N1
vaccine had been reported to the federal government's Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System. (Four more are under investigation.) The six
people with confirmed cases live in Maryland, Virginia, New York,
Connecticut, Florida and Illinois. In each case, the person came down
with neurological symptoms within two days being vaccinated -- almost
certainly too soon to be a consequence of the vaccine.
"At this point, we are not seeing any evidence there is an increase in
Guillain-Barre syndrome," said James J. Sejvar, the physician leading
CDC's surveillance for it.
A survey by the Harvard School of Public Health earlier in the fall
found that about half of American adults have no plans to get the
pandemic flu vaccine. Only one-third said they thought it was "very
safe" for most people.
Even if there were to be a slight increase in GBS, some public health
officials believe it would still be worth getting vaccinated.
"I think the numbers of people who would be saved from serious illness
or death would be far greater," said Palese.
The emerging picture of the 2009 pandemic seems to bear out that
hunch.
For every 100,000 people vaccinated, the 1976 vaccine was responsible
for just under 1 case of GBS. A CDC analysis this month revealed that
out of every 100,000 people who come down with the pandemic flu, 18
die from it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR200911270=
3248.html
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e0b1e6d-53f4-4ac3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
<snipped>
Your post was off topic and only parroted previous misconceptions.
PeterB - Original
> " Thinking SWINE FLU Vaccine? How About A Guillain-Barré [GEE-yan bah-
> RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
> thoughts ...
The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to be
protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR200...
> 3248.html
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4e0b1e6d-53f4-4ac3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
>
> <snipped>
>
> Your post was off topic and only parroted previous misconceptions.
That must explain why my posts are cited with published science and
yours resemble the work of a chimp. (My apologies to any chimps out
there ;)
Peter B
> RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
> thoughts ...
The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to be
protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
> ------------------------
Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done given
a real world scenarios.
No BS and No excuses.
Peter B
================================================
Hmmm, now you re-enforce the liar added to your impressive list of
credentials.
You have not published any science articles, nor have you parroted any.
This post of yours has been off topic since your first post. Care to
explain? Senility setting in ala Janet Drew?
Mark Probert
> Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association
A anti-vac organization.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:13e18341-73a8-47d3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> > " Thinking SWINE FLU Vaccine? How About A Guillain-Barré [GEE-yan bah-
> > RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> > Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
> > thoughts ...
>
> The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to
> be protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
> around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
> blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
>
> > ------------------------
>
> Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done
> given a real world scenarios.
Is that a question or a riddle?
> No BS and No excuses.
Of course not, that's your department.
PeterB - Original
And rightfully so. Unlike you, they understand the importance of the
Precautionary Principle.
Peter B
On Nov 28, 7:10 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:13e18341-73a8-47d3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 12:40 pm, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> > Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
> > thoughts ...
>
> The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to
> be protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
> around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
> blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
>
> > ------------------------
>
> Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done
> given a real world scenarios.
Is that a question or a riddle?
> No BS and No excuses.
Of course not, that's your department.
=========================================
Stalling for time?
You can't figure out how, can you?
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:708343c1-1634-483a...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 1:17 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:4e0b1e6d-53f4-4ac3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > Your post was off topic and only parroted previous misconceptions.
>
> That must explain why my posts are cited with published science
> and yours resemble the work of a chimp. (My apologies to any
> chimps out there ;)
> ================================================
> Hmmm, now you re-enforce the liar added to your impressive list
> of credentials.
Projection. Again.
> You have not published any science articles, nor have you
> parroted any.
So your earlier claim that all I do is parrot was a lie. Not very
good at keeping track of your bullshit, are you kid?
> This post of yours has been off topic since your first post. Care to
> explain? Senility setting in ala Janet Drew?
Sure, let me explain. You can't write, think, spell, or make an
argument, otherwise you would. If you're feeling stupid, it's only
because you are.
Peter B
On Nov 28, 7:14 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:708343c1-1634-483a...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 1:17 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:4e0b1e6d-53f4-4ac3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > Your post was off topic and only parroted previous misconceptions.
>
> That must explain why my posts are cited with published science
> and yours resemble the work of a chimp. (My apologies to any
> chimps out there ;)
> ================================================
> Hmmm, now you re-enforce the liar added to your impressive list
> of credentials.
Projection. Again.
> You have not published any science articles, nor have you
> parroted any.
So your earlier claim that all I do is parrot was a lie. Not very
good at keeping track of your bullshit, are you kid?
===============================================
Has nothing to due with keeping track, I'm stating that you do not use
science. Not very bright, are you?
When they stick you in the incinerator you will then be at your
brightest.
> This post of yours has been off topic since your first post. Care to
> explain? Senility setting in ala Janet Drew?
Sure, let me explain. You can't write, think, spell, or make an
argument, otherwise you would. If you're feeling stupid, it's only
because you are.
============================================
Drivel, all drivel.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0ca325cd-7d79-430b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 7:10 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:13e18341-73a8-47d3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 12:40 pm, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > bah-
> > > RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> > > Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
> > > thoughts ...
>
> > The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to
> > be protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
> > around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
> > blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
>
> > > ------------------------
>
> > Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done
> > given a real world scenarios.
>
> Is that a question or a riddle?
>
> > No BS and No excuses.
>
> Of course not, that's your department.
> =========================================
> Stalling for time?
Your comment, or whatever it was, is undecipherable. If you don't
understand how a double blinded RCT study works, look it up.
> You can't figure out how, can you?
How what?
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:870c3a1c-8b43-4eb1...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 7:14 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:708343c1-1634-483a...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 1:17 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:4e0b1e6d-53f4-4ac3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > > Vaccine and the "Science" of Marketing
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > Your post was off topic and only parroted previous misconceptions.
>
> > That must explain why my posts are cited with published science
> > and yours resemble the work of a chimp. (My apologies to any
> > chimps out there ;)
> > ================================================
> > Hmmm, now you re-enforce the liar added to your impressive list
> > of credentials.
>
> Projection. Again.
>
> > You have not published any science articles, nor have you
> > parroted any.
>
> So your earlier claim that all I do is parrot was a lie. Not very
> good at keeping track of your bullshit, are you kid?
> ===============================================
> Has nothing to due with keeping track, I'm stating that you do not
> use science. Not very bright, are you?
When challenging someone else's brightness, try to avoid using the
word "due" for "do."
> When they stick you in the incinerator you will then be at your
> brightest.
So you're a fan of the SS and human incineration. Why am I not
surprised?
Peter B
On Nov 29, 1:41 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:0ca325cd-7d79-430b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 7:10 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:13e18341-73a8-47d3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 12:40 pm, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > bah-
> > > RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> > > Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a
> > > few
> > > thoughts ...
>
> > The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to
> > be protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
> > around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
> > blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
>
> > > ------------------------
>
> > Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done
> > given a real world scenarios.
>
> Is that a question or a riddle?
>
> > No BS and No excuses.
>
> Of course not, that's your department.
> =========================================
> Stalling for time?
Your comment, or whatever it was, is undecipherable. If you don't
understand how a double blinded RCT study works, look it up.
> You can't figure out how, can you?
How what?
==========================================
Geez, you show that you are stupider than imaginable every day.
You were asked how you would run the studies, given the real world
environment. You can't. You could not understand.
You do, however, plead ignorance in how to do this. I suspect, and this
is *really* giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you know it simply
cannot be done.
Peter B
==============================================
Why didn't you use the word Nazi too? In any event it shows you know
that you've lost. 1st grammar police action then nazi crap. A complex
way of admitting you have not published any science articles, nor have
you parroted any.
Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind studies.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c3e47f80-74a9-47e6...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 1:41 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:0ca325cd-7d79-430b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 7:10 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:13e18341-73a8-47d3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 28, 12:40 pm, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > bah-
> > > > RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
>
> > > > Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a
> > > > few
> > > > thoughts ...
>
> > > The main problem with this article is that vaccines are assumed to
> > > be protective when historical data says they are not. The only way
> > > around this is to actually PROVE their effectiveness using double-
> > > blind RCTs, and the vaccine makers can't (or won't) do it.
>
> > > > ------------------------
>
> > > Ok Peter, do feel free explaining how dbl blind tests can be done
> > > given a real world scenarios.
>
> > Is that a question or a riddle?
>
> > > No BS and No excuses.
>
> > Of course not, that's your department.
> > =========================================
> > Stalling for time?
>
> Your comment, or whatever it was, is undecipherable. If you don't
> understand how a double blinded RCT study works, look it up.
>
> > You can't figure out how, can you?
>
> How what?
> ==========================================
> Geez, you show that you are stupider than imaginable every day.
So prove it. Stop whining and show us the data confirming vaccine
safety. You've already admitted that it doesn't exist. But we knew
that.
> You were asked how you would run the studies, given the real
> world environment. You can't. You could not understand.
Irrelevant. The point is that vaccines remain unproven.
> You do, however, plead ignorance in how to do this. I suspect, and
> this is *really* giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you know it
> simply cannot be done.
Thank you for admitting that vaccines do not satisfy the demands of
"evidence based medicine."
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4b957e25-0427-4521...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Is that what you want, pharmnut, to be associated with something so
vile?
> In any event it shows you know that you've lost.
No, it just shows you're a moron.
> 1st grammar police action then nazi crap. A
> complex way of admitting you have not published any science
> articles, nor have you parroted any.
You already said that I parrot consistently, so which is it? Looks
like you can't keep track of your own bullshit, which isn't surprising
for one who bullshits so constantly.
> Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind studies.
I challenged you and those of your ilk to produce evidence that you
now admit does not exist, based on your claim that such studies are
impossible. That, of course, is pure BS, but it doesn't matter. What
matters is that vaccines remain unproven.
Mark Probert
Which is bullshit.
PeterB - Original
Proving you don't believe in "evidence based medicine," as you claim
to. If you didn't use illogic you would use no logic at all.
Peter B
On Nov 29, 2:11 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:4b957e25-0427-4521...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 2:08 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind studies.
I challenged you and those of your ilk to produce evidence that you
now admit does not exist, based on your claim that such studies are
impossible. That, of course, is pure BS, but it doesn't matter. What
matters is that vaccines remain unproven.
====================================================
There was nothing to admit, but here you go an state that it is possible
and all it is BS.
Fine, then prove it? Lay out a scenario where it can be done in a timely
real world manner.
I am calling your bluff.
Peter B
Why do you always run from the subject? Why do you try and escape using
strawmen?
Why are you so stupid that you could not easily understand the context,
ecognize the mistake and continue on? Not very bright are you?
> > When they stick you in the incinerator you will then be at your
> > brightest.
>
> So you're a fan of the SS and human incineration. Why am I not
> surprised?
> ==============================================
> Why didn't you use the word Nazi too?
Is that what you want, pharmnut, to be associated with something so
vile?
================================================
Now that was pretty stupid on your part, not very bright are you?
> In any event it shows you know that you've lost.
No, it just shows you're a moron.
==============================================
Hardly.again you've proven you're not very bright.
> 1st grammar police action then nazi crap. A
> complex way of admitting you have not published any science
> articles, nor have you parroted any.
You already said that I parrot consistently, so which is it? Looks
like you can't keep track of your own bullshit, which isn't surprising
for one who bullshits so constantly.
=============================================
How stupid can you get? Try rereading the paragraph, one word at a
time. Think as you read perhaps you'll get it
this time.
But somehow I doubt it.
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:01986fcc-0aba-4072...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
=================================================
"Illogic" Is a rapper, fool
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ccfbbd77-a369-463e...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
You've already admitted that vaccine safety remains unproven, so you
agree with the point of my thread. If you are claiming it doesn't
matter because a proper study couldn't be done, then you are also
admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine." Either
way, it's YOUR claim to prove, not mine. Even if you were right (you
aren't) it doesn't change anything. An unproven medication doesn't
get a free pass just because you claim it was impossible to
scientifically evaluate it. And since you don't believe in science-
based interventions, we can now discount 100% of everything else you
claim about medical science.
PeterB - Original
>
> > > Has nothing to due with keeping track, I'm stating that you do not
> > > use science. Not very bright, are you?
>
> > When challenging someone else's brightness, try to avoid using
> > the word "due" for "do."
>
> Why do you always run from the subject?
You haven't introduced one. I started this thread, remember?
> Why do you try and
> escape using strawmen?
Do you mean the straw between your ears? There seems to be no
escaping it for either of us.
> Why are you so stupid that you could not easily understand the
> context, ecognize the mistake and continue on? Not very bright
> are you?
Bright enough that I wouldn't write "econgnize the mistake."
> > > When they stick you in the incinerator you will then be at your
> > > brightest.
>
> > So you're a fan of the SS and human incineration. Why am I not
> > surprised?
> > ==============================================
> > Why didn't you use the word Nazi too?
>
> Is that what you want, pharmnut, to be associated with something
> so vile?
> ================================================
> Now that was pretty stupid on your part, not very bright are you?
You obviously "think" that referring to someone being incinerated
helped to make your point. I'm not surprised you now want to run
away from it.
> > In any event it shows you know that you've lost.
>
> No, it just shows you're a moron.
> ==============================================
> Hardly.again you've proven you're not very bright.
You're the one who can't distinguish between "due" and "do."
> > 1st grammar police action then nazi crap. A
> > complex way of admitting you have not published any science
> > articles, nor have you parroted any.
>
> You already said that I parrot consistently, so which is it? Looks
> like you can't keep track of your own bullshit, which isn't surprising
> for one who bullshits so constantly.
> =============================================
> How stupid can you get? Try rereading the paragraph, one word at a
> time. Think as you read perhaps you'll get it
> this time.
>
> But somehow I doubt it.
Somehow you don't have a brain but continue to type. Over
vaccinated?
Mark Probert
Wrong. I use logic, not fallacious logic, and I do believe in evidence
based medicine. It is your application of the PP that is bullshit.
Peter B
On Dec 2, 1:03 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:ccfbbd77-a369-463e...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 2:11 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:4b957e25-0427-4521...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 29, 2:08 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind studies.
>
> I challenged you and those of your ilk to produce evidence that you
> now admit does not exist, based on your claim that such studies are
> impossible. That, of course, is pure BS, but it doesn't matter. What
> matters is that vaccines remain unproven.
> ====================================================
>
> There was nothing to admit, but here you go an state that it is
> possible
> and all it is BS.
>
> Fine, then prove it? Lay out a scenario where it can be done in a
> timely
> real world manner.
>
> I am calling your bluff.
You've already admitted that vaccine safety remains unproven, so you
agree with the point of my thread.
===============================================
You lied and no cites to prove it. scum bag.
If you are claiming it doesn't
matter because a proper study couldn't be done,
===============================================
If? then you go on trying again to put words in my mouth, sucmbag!
then you are also
admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine."
===============================================
No, you old woman. Your arguments suck, your reasoning sucks, and like
everything else you do you project your thinking on everyone else. You
evade and run like a baby. You are a coward, and have no original
thought. You modify posts in an effort to make you look less stupid. You
are every bit as bad as Back stabbing Janet, and you don't care.
Either
way, it's YOUR claim to prove, not mine. Even if you were right (you
aren't) it doesn't change anything. An unproven medication doesn't
get a free pass just because you claim it was impossible to
scientifically evaluate it. And since you don't believe in science-
based interventions, we can now discount 100% of everything else you
claim about medical science.
===============================================
We? who is we batman? More goobly gook? Yes. Your strawman arguments
followed by you KOKI reasoning it totally absurd. You succeed big time
in showing your stupidity rather consistently. SAD
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d5f2d3c8-c70c-403e...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 1:03 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:ccfbbd77-a369-463e...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 29, 2:11 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:4b957e25-0427-4521...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 29, 2:08 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind studies.
>
> > I challenged you and those of your ilk to produce evidence that you
> > now admit does not exist, based on your claim that such studies are
> > impossible. That, of course, is pure BS, but it doesn't matter. What
> > matters is that vaccines remain unproven.
> > ====================================================
>
> > There was nothing to admit, but here you go an state that it is
> > possible
> > and all it is BS.
>
> > Fine, then prove it? Lay out a scenario where it can be done in a
> > timely
> > real world manner.
>
> > I am calling your bluff.
>
> You've already admitted that vaccine safety remains unproven, so
> you agree with the point of my thread.
> ===============================================
> You lied and no cites to prove it. scum bag.
You said proper safety studies for vaccine were not possible, which
means you agree they have not been done. Why so ashamed to admit
it?
> If you are claiming it doesn't
> matter because a proper study couldn't be done,
> ===============================================
> If? then you go on trying again to put words in my mouth,
> sucmbag!
You yourself said that vaccine safety can't be proven using RCT
methods, yet you promote vaccine anyway. The only logical conclusion
from this is that you don't believe vaccines safety is of critical
importance.
> then you are also
> admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine."
> ===============================================
> No, you old woman. Your arguments suck, your reasoning sucks,
> and like everything else you do you project your thinking on
> everyone else.
You made your own arguments and now refuse to defend them. Don't
whine because your own words are coming back to haunt you.
> You
> evade and run like a baby.
I have evaded nothing. I started this thread to point out the
deficiencies of vaccine research, and you have failed to intelligently
respond.
> You are a coward, and have no original thought.
Personal attack noted.
> You modify posts in an effort to make you look less
> stupid.
Liar. I have not modified anyone's posts.
> You are every bit as bad as Back stabbing Janet, and you
> don't care.
>
> Either
> way, it's YOUR claim to prove, not mine. Even if you were right (you
> aren't) it doesn't change anything. An unproven medication doesn't
> get a free pass just because you claim it was impossible to
> scientifically evaluate it. And since you don't believe in science-
> based interventions, we can now discount 100% of everything else you
> claim about medical science.
> ===============================================
> We?
You know, intelligent folks. Well, I guess you don't know.
Peter B
Prove it.
>> If you are claiming it doesn't
>> matter because a proper study couldn't be done,
>> ===============================================
>> If? then you go on trying again to put words in my mouth,
>> sucmbag!
>
> You yourself said that vaccine safety can't be proven using RCT
> methods, yet you promote vaccine anyway. The only logical conclusion
> from this is that you don't believe vaccines safety is of critical
> importance.
>
Prove it.
>> then you are also
>> admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine."
>> ===============================================
>> No, you old woman. Your arguments suck, your reasoning sucks,
>> and like everything else you do you project your thinking on
>> everyone else.
>
> You made your own arguments and now refuse to defend them. Don't
> whine because your own words are coming back to haunt you.
>
Prove it, liar.
>> You
>> evade and run like a baby.
>
> I have evaded nothing. I started this thread to point out the
> deficiencies of vaccine research, and you have failed to intelligently
> respond.
>
you evaded everything, not once have you stood for anything on your own
two feet.
>> You are a coward, and have no original thought.
>
> Personal attack noted.
>
You are a scumbag too.
>> You modify posts in an effort to make you look less
>> stupid.
>
> Liar. I have not modified anyone's posts.
>
You do it all the time.
>> You are every bit as bad as Back stabbing Janet, and you
>> don't care.
>>
>> Either
>> way, it's YOUR claim to prove, not mine. Even if you were right (you
>> aren't) it doesn't change anything. An unproven medication doesn't
>> get a free pass just because you claim it was impossible to
>> scientifically evaluate it. And since you don't believe in science-
>> based interventions, we can now discount 100% of everything else you
>> claim about medical science.
>> ===============================================
>> We?
>
> You know, intelligent folks. Well, I guess you don't know.
>
Then that excludes you, batman.
PeterB - Original
>
> >> > > Look how you run from that which you suggested, dbl blind
> >> > > studies.
>
> >> > I challenged you and those of your ilk to produce evidence that you
> >> > now admit does not exist, based on your claim that such studies are
> >> > impossible. That, of course, is pure BS, but it doesn't matter.
> >> > What
> >> > matters is that vaccines remain unproven.
> >> > =================================================
>
> >> > possible
> >> > and all it is BS.
>
> >> > Fine, then prove it? Lay out a scenario where it can be done
> >> > in a timely real world manner.
>
> >> > I am calling your bluff.
>
> >> You've already admitted that vaccine safety remains unproven,
> >> so you agree with the point of my thread.
> >> ===============================================
> >> You lied and no cites to prove it. scum bag.
>
> > You said proper safety studies for vaccine were not possible,
> > which means you agree they have not been done. Why so
> > ashamed to admit it?
>
> Prove it.
In your own words:
"You were asked how you would run the studies, given the real world
environment. You can't. You could not understand. You do, however,
plead ignorance in how to do this. I suspect, and this is *really*
giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you know it simply cannot be
done."
So here you are, lying that you said it. And just so you don't lie
again insisting that I misquoted you, here is the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c4d46c3c14767008?hl=en&dmode=source
> >> If you are claiming it doesn't
> >> matter because a proper study couldn't be done,
> >> ===============================================
> >> If? then you go on trying again to put words in my mouth,
> >> sucmbag!
>
> > You yourself said that vaccine safety can't be proven using RCT
> > methods, yet you promote vaccine anyway. The only logical
> > conclusion from this is that you don't believe vaccines safety is
> > of critical importance.
>
> Prove it.
So make your case. If your failure to cite *any* meaningful vaccine
safety data is not proof of what I say, explain yourself. Or keep
stalling.
> >> then you are also
> >> admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine."
> >> ===============================================
> >> No, you old woman. Your arguments suck, your reasoning
> >> sucks, and like everything else you do you project your
> >> thinking on everyone else.
>
> > You made your own arguments and now refuse to defend them.
> > Don't whine because your own words are coming back to haunt
> > you.
>
> Prove it, liar.
I just did.
> >> You evade and run like a baby.
>
> > I have evaded nothing. I started this thread to point out the
> > deficiencies of vaccine research, and you have failed to
> > intelligently respond.
>
> you evaded everything, not once have you stood for anything on
> your own two feet.
Since all the back peddling has been yours, you can't make that
claim. Well, sure you can, as liars can say anything they want.
> >> You are a coward, and have no original thought.
>
> > Personal attack noted.
>
> You are a scumbag too.
>
> >> You modify posts in an effort to make you look less
> >> stupid.
>
> > Liar. I have not modified anyone's posts.
>
> You do it all the time.
So produce a link to any post of yours I modified. No? I didn't
think so. Stop whining because someone holds you accountable to what
you say.
Jan Drew
> On Nov 29, 1:12�am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:38�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 12:08�pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association
>
> > > A anti-vac organization.
Prove it. You made a cliam. The burden of proof is on you.
>
> > And rightfully so. �Unlike you, they understand the importance of the
> > Precautionary Principle.
>
> Which is bullshit.
ZZzz.
Results 1 - 10 of about 10,200 for Mark Probert bullshit. (0.34
seconds)
PeterB - Original
Whatever it is you believe, it has nothing to do with science. We
know that from your reading list, which is non existent.
Peter B
In your own words:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c4d46c3c14767008?hl=en&dmode=source
=======================================================
Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply cannot be
done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me. Where did the *you* become
me? I find it interesting since it would seem that you knew that all
along so that is why you consistently avoided answering my question,
even after you plainly stated the opposite was unequivocable.
On top of that you were arguing the effectiveness of vaccines, not
safety. Dbl blind studies are not necessary for safety issues bozo. You
die or you don't. Rats die or they don't.
> >> If you are claiming it doesn't
> >> matter because a proper study couldn't be done,
> >> ===============================================
> >> If? then you go on trying again to put words in my mouth,
> >> sucmbag!
>
> > You yourself said that vaccine safety can't be proven using RCT
> > methods, yet you promote vaccine anyway. The only logical
> > conclusion from this is that you don't believe vaccines safety is
> > of critical importance.
>
> Prove it.
So make your case. If your failure to cite *any* meaningful vaccine
safety data is not proof of what I say, explain yourself. Or keep
stalling.
===============================================
I told you the last time you went and mocked written words, cites, etc.
stating that they do not mean anything, that I appreciated your honesty
in stating why anything that is quoted to you will be treated as such.
That you are the god of understanding what is right and what is not. It
relieved me of any effort at copying anything ot citing anything. You
cannot have it both ways with an intelligent human being. I am not
playing your games of being stupid. I asked you to prove it, and you say
"make your case"? Peter, the Original Butthead you can try playing that
game with your stupid SO, but it doesn't work here.
> >> then you are also
> >> admitting that you don't believe in "evidence based medicine."
> >> ===============================================
> >> No, you old woman. Your arguments suck, your reasoning
> >> sucks, and like everything else you do you project your
> >> thinking on everyone else.
>
> > You made your own arguments and now refuse to defend them.
> > Don't whine because your own words are coming back to haunt
> > you.
>
> Prove it, liar.
I just did.
======================================
Nope, busted strawman.
> >> You evade and run like a baby.
>
> > I have evaded nothing. I started this thread to point out the
> > deficiencies of vaccine research, and you have failed to
> > intelligently respond.
>
> you evaded everything, not once have you stood for anything on
> your own two feet.
Since all the back peddling has been yours, you can't make that
claim. Well, sure you can, as liars can say anything they want.
=============================================
Sure you can, and did. Not once have you defended your arguement about
dbl blind studies in the real world since you were either too stupid, or
knew you could not as I stated in your quote of mine.
> >> You are a coward, and have no original thought.
>
> > Personal attack noted.
>
> You are a scumbag too.
>
> >> You modify posts in an effort to make you look less
> >> stupid.
>
> > Liar. I have not modified anyone's posts.
>
> You do it all the time.
So produce a link to any post of yours I modified. No? I didn't
think so. Stop whining because someone holds you accountable to what
you say.
===============================================
I have copied and pasted your modified posts several times, the point
was already proven.
You don't read very well having copied a post of mine which proved you
wrong.
You still are a scumbag too. ;)
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2548d09-63a8-405b...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
=================================================
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Peter Butthead logic!
We know it from your non existent reading list.!
ROTFLOL, and you expect someone to take your "science" seriously?
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mark Probert
> On Nov 29, 7:34 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 1:12 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 7:38 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 12:08 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association
>
> > > > A anti-vac organization.
>
> Prove it. You made a cliam. The burden of proof is on you.
Any intelligent person (that leaves you out) would reach the same
conclusion if they read the site. Please find a 4-year old and have
them do it for you.
> > > And rightfully so. Unlike you, they understand the importance of the
> > > Precautionary Principle.
>
> > Which is bullshit.
>
> ZZzz.
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 10,200 for Mark Probert bullshit. (0.34
> seconds)
Yes, the anti-vac liars spread a lot of that around.
Mark Probert
That is a lie. I have told you differently. I just do not rely on
books, as you do.
PeterB - Original
Your refusal to cite *any* published science or to intelligently
discuss the science presented by others proves I'm right.
PeterB - Original
> =======================================================
> Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply cannot be
> done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me.
Idiot. You said it, now you have to live with it.
> Where did the *you* become
> me?
Nice try. But since you can't produce any double blind RCTs on
vaccine, we know it's just more back peddling.
> I find it interesting since it would seem that you knew that all
> along ...
That you're a moron? There was never any doubt about it.
Peter B
============================================
What part of "*you* know" do you not understand?
> Where did the *you* become
> me?
Nice try. But since you can't produce any double blind RCTs on
vaccine, we know it's just more back peddling.
=============================================
There was no back pedaling going on here, it is on your end via your
delusions.
> I find it interesting since it would seem that you knew that all
> along ...
That you're a moron? There was never any doubt about it.
=============================================
No that is funny, you Mr. Dumber than a rock, you who does not even know
what moron means calling someone else a moron.
You get an "A" for effort, now if you just knew what you were talking
about.
What has intrigued me is that during this whole entire thread not once
did you address "the "Science" of Marketing." which was in your subject
line. Nor how it fit in with the subject of Vaccines. Yet you call *me*
a moron? That's rich, Peter the Original Butthead.
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:234a1e3b-bfeb-4934...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
====================================================
Now here is another example of you being a moron. I realize I'm speaking
to the choir of stupid, but........... Just how can one discuss the
""science" presented by others" when no one but them considers what they
speak of as science? We might call your science genuine stupidity, since
it generally is, but one would *have* to be genuinely stupid to discuss
it. Only you could fit that bill nicely. ;)
PeterB - Original
>
> > Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply cannot
> > be done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me.
>
> Idiot. You said it, now you have to live with it.
> ============================================
> What part of "*you* know" do you not understand?
If you are now claiming that such studies are possible, why have you
failed to produce one?
> > Where did the *you* become
> > me?
>
> Nice try. But since you can't produce any double blind RCTs on
> vaccine, we know it's just more back peddling.
> =============================================
> There was no back pedaling going on here, it is on your end via your
> delusions.
It is no delusion to say that vaccines remain unproven.
> > I find it interesting since it would seem that you knew that all
> > along ...
>
> That you're a moron? There was never any doubt about it.
> =============================================
> You get an "A" for effort, now if you just knew what you were talking
> about.
That isn't possible, as it doesn't require any when responding to
you.
> What has intrigued me is that during this whole entire thread not once
> did you address "the "Science" of Marketing." which was in your subject
> line. Nor how it fit in with the subject of Vaccines.
Like you, it's pretty simple. Absent data, facts, or proper study,
vaccine is a product of the science of marketing.
> Yet you call *me*
> a moron? That's rich, Peter the Original Butthead.
I would call you a chimp but I don't want to offend lower primates.
Peter B
On Dec 6, 12:23 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply
> > cannot
> > be done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me.
>
> Idiot. You said it, now you have to live with it.
> ============================================
> What part of "*you* know" do you not understand?
If you are now claiming that such studies are possible, why have you
failed to produce one?
> > Where did the *you* become
> > me?
>
> Nice try. But since you can't produce any double blind RCTs on
> vaccine, we know it's just more back peddling.
> =============================================
> There was no back pedaling going on here, it is on your end via your
> delusions.
It is no delusion to say that vaccines remain unproven.
> > I find it interesting since it would seem that you knew that all
> > along ...
>
> That you're a moron? There was never any doubt about it.
> =============================================
> You get an "A" for effort, now if you just knew what you were talking
> about.
That isn't possible,
==============================================
Really? I sort of knew that but it IS nice hearing you admit total
failure.
as it doesn't require any when responding to you.
==============================================
Doesn't require any?
Hmmmmmm
Naw, you are just lazy.
> What has intrigued me is that during this whole entire thread not once
> did you address "the "Science" of Marketing." which was in your
> subject
> line. Nor how it fit in with the subject of Vaccines.
Like you, it's pretty simple. Absent data, facts, or proper study,
vaccine is a product of the science of marketing.
==============================================
You still haven't addressed the Science of marketing and how it relates.
> Yet you call *me*
> a moron? That's rich, Peter the Original Butthead.
I would call you a chimp but I don't want to offend lower primates.
=============================================
Why? Would your dad take offense and punish you?
Apparently you still've got a 100K times, or so, left for you to bang on
the keyboard and make sense.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:61f8236e-dc50-417f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 12:23 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply
> > > cannot
> > > be done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me.
>
> > Idiot. You said it, now you have to live with it.
> > ============================================
> > What part of "*you* know" do you not understand?
>
> If you are now claiming that such studies are possible, why have you
> failed to produce one?
<chirp>
Peter B
<chirp>
What a freaking loon.
Good thing you wimped out.
Peter Bowditch
I produced a list of several thousand of them. You were either too
frightened or too prejudiced to look at the list.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Peter B
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:42rrh5l3a1k21vi5s...@4ax.com...
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 7, 9:25 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>>> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:61f8236e-dc50-417f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 6, 12:23 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > Interesting, I very distinctly said, " that you know it simply
>>> > > cannot
>>> > > be done." and you ascribe the whole thing to me.
>>>
>>> > Idiot. You said it, now you have to live with it.
>>> > ============================================
>>> > What part of "*you* know" do you not understand?
>>>
>>> If you are now claiming that such studies are possible, why have you
>>> failed to produce one?
>>
>><chirp>
>>
>
> I produced a list of several thousand of them. You were either too
> frightened or too prejudiced to look at the list.
Only in your feeble mind. None of them not one addressed the issue at
hand here, that *you* brought up and failed to address. Please spare us
the long list of garbage you are apt to post since your reading
comprehension is so non existent. Most of the time your petty little
quibbles are about a spelling or grammar error thinking that somehow
that lifts you out of the mire.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d826dad2-f438-493e...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
So your earlier admission that a proper study of vaccine doesn't exist
was correct. Thank you for agreeing that vaccines are dangerous,
unpredictable, and unproven.
PeterB - Original
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
ROTFLOL!! You don't even know who you are responding to, dumbass.
When a fellow pharmnut steps in to help you out, you're supposed to
run away and be grateful for cover. Instead, you attacked him for
making the same dumb arguments as you. And since you couldn't
possibly defend an "argument" that neither of you has actually made,
I'm not surprised you ended up making a bigger fool of yourself than
you already have. Too funny. What an idiot you are.
Peter B
===============================================
You always assume more than you ought, in error as usual.
Peter B
==================================================
Not an idiot, was just tired and the way the messages are laid out in OE
ng lead to my mistake.
MY Apologies to both Peter Bowditch and Peter the Original Butthead.
Peter Bowditch for obvious reasons, but not the ones sad little Butthead
see's. And Peter Butthead for ruining his fun.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6162044e-b73e-44fe...@r1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The reason for your idiotic gaff was that you don't
bother reading what you're responding to, nor would it matter because
you don't have a clue anyway. But feel free to blame "how the
messages are laid out" and see how much mileage you can get out of
that one, I'm sure it will continue to amuse.
> MY Apologies to both Peter Bowditch and Peter the Original Butthead.
> Peter Bowditch for obvious reasons, but not the ones sad little Butthead
> see's. And Peter Butthead for ruining his fun.
You just handed it to me on a silver platter. Dimwit.