Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine

[Dan]

http://skep.li/1bjjJxt

Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM

EVERY genuine religion in Australia wants parents to vaccinate their
children, from Islam and Judaism to Christian denominations including
Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anti-vaccine activists have created a sham 'Church of Conscious Living'
to exploit a loophole in federal and State vaccination laws, which allow
parents to claim childcare rebates and access daycare centres if they
have a religious objection.

But an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph reveals every real faith
believes vaccinations are necessary to eliminate deadly diseases such as
whooping cough.

The exemption is "a scam," according to NSW opposition health spokesman
Andrew McDonald, while federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has pledged
to restrict vaccine exemptions to "clear religious reasons" and genuine
medical conditions.

FROM THE HOMEPAGE
Sydney's Angry Mile erupts at midnight

I'm filthy over Origin ban

But the federal government is refusing to close the loophole, which
undermines its own pro-vaccination policies.

Under pressure from the No Jab, No Play campaign run by The Sunday
Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph, the NSW government has introduced
legislation restricting child-care centres to children who have a
complete vaccination record or a GP-approved exemption for "personal,
philosophical, religious or medical" objections.

The formula matches the Commonwealth's Medicare Immunisation Exemption
Conscientious Objection Form, which allows parents to get 50 per cent
childcare rebate with the same objections.

NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner acknowledged parents could get
around the new law, but said: "To have done other than adopt that
(Commonwealth) form would have created a two-tiered system where a
parent could theoretically claim a tax rebate but be unable to enrol
their children.".

The Church of Conscious Living, which is being touted by the
controversial anti-vaccine group the Australian Vaccination Network, was
created as an anti-vaccine front by activists Jane Leonforte and Adriano
Regano in Queensland in 2008.

Ms Leonforte told The Sunday Telegraph that the church was legitimate
and had 200 members, but they have never had to use the church to get
the exemption.

Heads of the Catholic, Anglican, and Uniting churches have confirmed
they have no objection to vaccination. Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence said the
Jewish faith holds no objections and nor does the Islamic faith
according to the Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' position statement reads: "We have no objection
to vaccines in general. Some vaccines contain minor blood fractions, and
use of these is a matter of personal choice."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is pro-vaccination, as
are the Seventh Day Adventists, spokespeople for both churches said.

The Church of Christ has no objection, nor does Scientology or Christian
Scientists, who were previously objectors in the US.

State opposition health spokesman Dr Andrew McDonald said the religious
exemption was a "scam". "The Medicare religious exemption will need to
be re-examined in the future depending on the numbers using it over
time," he said.

A spokesman for federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek said any vaccine
refuser had to prove they had discussed their objections with an
immunisation provider.

Federal opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said an Abbott
government would crack down on exemptions. "The Coalition would support
any necessary changes to exemption provisions if there is evidence they
are being misused," Mr Dutton said.

The Sunday Telegraph and Daily Telegraph are campaigning to end reckless
scaremongering over vaccination and lift slipping rates. NSW has
introduced a law limiting daycare centres to kids with a complete
vaccine record - or an exemption on religious or philosophical grounds.

The federal government has so far refused to act on our demand that the
50 per cent childcare rebate be restricted to fully vaccinated children.

[E. Peabody]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
wrote:

>
>
>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>
>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>

Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.

And how does anybody know what they're really putting in vaccines?
I don't think mercury, aluminium and formaldahyde are good for people.

Nor are other things such as monkey virus which could be how HIV got
started, chicken virus which could be how bird flu started.

The point is the public just don't know what the hell is being put
into vaccines and if people really need them either for all the things
that they say need to be vaccinated against.

With Big pharma in charge its all about money and keeping the people
sick as there is more money in sickness than good health.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.


Emily

Suppression of dissent in science
Brian Martin / Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 7
1999
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Dissent-Science.htm

[Woody]

On 6/9/2013 3:03 AM, E. Peabody wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>
>> Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>> JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>
>
> Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>
> And how does anybody know what they're really putting in vaccines?
> I don't think mercury, aluminium and formaldahyde are good for people.

carole <-- an idiot, and her own words have made her so.


--
"Men are bullies, they start and conduct all the wars.
All pedophiles and rapists are men. Practically all
murderers and criminals are men. All secret societies
that plot against the world are populated by men. All
big corporations that rob and loot the world's resources
are run by men." - carole hubbard the misandrist
Message-ID: <5tehl.16405$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

[Bob Officer]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>
>>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>
>
>Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.

Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
vaccines?

Don't you love logic carole?


carole's goal is to reload and shoot herself in the other foot,

somehow I expect she will succeed.


--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>

[John H. Gohde]

On Jun 9, 10:10 am, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
>
> Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:

> >On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Market...@bigpharma.com.au>

> >wrote:
>
> >>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>
> >>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
> >>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>
> >Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>
> Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
> vaccines?
>
> Don't you love logic carole?
>
> carole's goal is to reload and shoot herself in the other foot,
>
> somehow I expect she will succeed.
>
> --
> Bob Officer

Yes, it is sad, but true.

Moi is preparing to part from these ngs, long at last. These Usenet
ngs have been an incredible waste of my time. Not to mention, Usenet
newsgroups are a horribly obsolete forum.

I will be moving onto Disqus forums.

Of course, Moi is planning on doing a lot of things.

[george152]

On 09/06/13 19:03, E. Peabody wrote:

> And how does anybody know what they're really putting in vaccines?
> I don't think mercury, aluminium and formaldahyde are good for people.
>
> Nor are other things such as monkey virus which could be how HIV got
> started, chicken virus which could be how bird flu started.

The pea brain came with the Peabody ????

[george152]

Door, arse, go

[Bob Officer]

the pea brain came with carole hubbard. It is, just another of her
plague of socks.

[Bob Officer]

well this is a nice development.

Does it mean you too, george will be leaving MHA? Maybe I will
crosspost a few of the kookier articles from here which deserve a big
dose of skepticism and logic criticism

[george152]

On 10/06/13 10:20, Bob Officer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:04:09 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,
> george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

>> Door, arse, go
>
> well this is a nice development.
>
> Does it mean you too, george will be leaving MHA? Maybe I will
> crosspost a few of the kookier articles from here which deserve a big
> dose of skepticism and logic criticism

I am suggesting that Carole (and other kooks) avoid having the door hit
them on the way out...
I'm posting from sci.skeptic

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:29:16 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,

george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

>On 10/06/13 10:20, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:04:09 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,
>> george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>>> Door, arse, go
>>
>> well this is a nice development.
>>
>> Does it mean you too, george will be leaving MHA? Maybe I will
>> crosspost a few of the kookier articles from here which deserve a big
>> dose of skepticism and logic criticism
>
>I am suggesting that Carole (and other kooks) avoid having the door hit
>them on the way out...
>I'm posting from sci.skeptic

You're still after all these years? Tell me is ArchieP still posting
in that group? Professor Albain? I really haven't looked in there for
years.

[george152]

On 10/06/13 11:50, Bob Officer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:29:16 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,
> george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/13 10:20, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:04:09 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,
>>> george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Door, arse, go
>>>
>>> well this is a nice development.
>>>
>>> Does it mean you too, george will be leaving MHA? Maybe I will
>>> crosspost a few of the kookier articles from here which deserve a big
>>> dose of skepticism and logic criticism
>>
>> I am suggesting that Carole (and other kooks) avoid having the door hit
>> them on the way out...
>> I'm posting from sci.skeptic
>
> You're still after all these years? Tell me is ArchieP still posting
> in that group? Professor Albain? I really haven't looked in there for
> years.
>
>
>

Not as far as I know.
We have a new assortment of kooks that you'd enjoy playing with.
Most of them are to thick to understand what's going on :)

[Clayton]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:10:49 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
>Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>>
>>>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>>>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>>
>>
>>Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>
>Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
>vaccines?

The anti-vaccine church is qualified to say they don't want that which
hasn't been proven to be safe to be put in their body.

When modern medicine can find the cause of autism maybe it will get a
little more credit than merely saying, "we don't know the cause of
autism but its not vaccines".

>
>Don't you love logic carole?

Well you haven't got any Fred.

>
>
>carole's goal is to reload and shoot herself in the other foot,
>
>somehow I expect she will succeed.

I haven't seen "Carole" around here for quite a while now.

You big pharma shills are obsessed with her.

Get a life.

Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous

[Clayton]

You do what you need to do John.
Note mha is an alternative health forum, devoted to all forms of
alternative health, not just nutrition.

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:20:34 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,

Coop, jabriol and Holeflapper? They are pale when compared to the
kooks of yesteryear. Not even close the wackiness of nancy lieder and
her kooky zetas.

We have a few real one's here. Hubbard and Bolen or is it bolen and
Hubbard. Both seem delusional to any rational person.

They are better than sitting around waiting for another bullis or
stapleton to show up.

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:51:13 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Clayton <.@.> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:10:49 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
>>Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>>>
>>>>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>>>>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>>>
>>>
>>>Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>>
>>Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
>>vaccines?
>
>The anti-vaccine church is qualified to say they don't want that which
>hasn't been proven to be safe to be put in their body.

You logic actually says different. Do you not understand what a
contradiction is, carole?

You said:
"Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion."

That means if the anti vaccine is a real church it can not be
qualified to make a comment about vaccines.
or
It means they are not a real church and thus not subject to religious
rights of freedom.

They can not be both.

>When modern medicine can find the cause of autism maybe it will get a
>little more credit than merely saying, "we don't know the cause of
>autism but its not vaccines".

They do know the cause carole and you been told before. It seems to
be caused by a de novo mutation.

>>
>>Don't you love logic carole?
>
>Well you haven't got any Fred.

Better than yours, if you can't catch a self contained contradiction.

>>carole's goal is to reload and shoot herself in the other foot,
>>
>>somehow I expect she will succeed.
>
>I haven't seen "Carole" around here for quite a while now.

Actually I know clayton (and a host of other socks) is/are carole.

[Reg Griswold]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:52:47 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:51:13 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>Clayton <.@.> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:10:49 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
>>>Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>>>>
>>>>>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>>>>>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>>>
>>>Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
>>>vaccines?
>>
>>The anti-vaccine church is qualified to say they don't want that which
>>hasn't been proven to be safe to be put in their body.
>
>You logic actually says different. Do you not understand what a
>contradiction is, carole?
>
>You said:
>"Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion."

A person has the right to object to what they find objectionable.
If it takes a church to enforce people's rights, I don't see a
problem.
A person is in charge of their own body and should be free to say "no,
I don't want mercury, formaldahyde or aluminum, monkey virus or
chicken viruses insected into my body".

That is logic Frank.

>
>That means if the anti vaccine is a real church it can not be
>qualified to make a comment about vaccines.

I doesn't make comment about vaccines, merely that a person is free to
choose on whatever grounds.

>or
>It means they are not a real church and thus not subject to religious
>rights of freedom.

Personal integrity of the person's being means they are free sovereign
beings, free to choose in what they will or will not partake. The
church is a refuge to escape from tyrrany of government dictates.

Same as if a person objects to war they should be able to be a
conscientious objector and not have to partake in killing of other
people.

>
>They can not be both.
>

You have proven over and over that you don't understand logic, are
biased and have preconceived ideas.

Get a life and go back to your rock collection



Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

[Clayton]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:08:20 +1000, Reg Griswold <reg...@gmail.com>

Put it another way Reg.
If a person DOESN'T have the right to object on what they find
objectionable, then that means they are living under a tyrannical
dictatorship.

On the one hand is freedom to choose, on the other dictatorship.

Freedom - dictatorship.

[george152]

Lieder still has her crazy page where camera artefacts feature greatly..
Holeflapper still does occasionally.
There are the usual world ends tomorrow and non scientific waffle.
But nothing like EGC

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:08:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg
Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:52:47 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:51:13 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>Clayton <.@.> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:10:49 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:03:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, E.
>>>>Peabody <*.@.*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:22:28 +0800, Dan <Mark...@bigpharma.com.au>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://skep.li/1bjjJxt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Real churches denounce cult of anti-vaccine
>>>>>>JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 09, 2013 12:00AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion.
>>>>
>>>>Really? So this anti-vaccinine cult is qualified to comment on
>>>>vaccines?
>>>
>>>The anti-vaccine church is qualified to say they don't want that which
>>>hasn't been proven to be safe to be put in their body.
>>
>>You logic actually says different. Do you not understand what a
>>contradiction is, carole?
>>
>>You said:
>>"Real churches aren't qualified to comment on anything but religion."
>
>A person has the right to object to what they find objectionable.

That isn't what, you, carole said. Learn to read!

>If it takes a church to enforce people's rights, I don't see a
>problem.

Not getting vaccines for children isn't a right.

>A person is in charge of their own body and should be free to say "no,
>I don't want mercury, formaldahyde or aluminum, monkey virus or
>chicken viruses insected into my body".

"insected"? carole the IfDU strikes again. mayle she believe vaccines
are injected by mosquitos

However your "logic" is false and based upon your personal ignorance
and no it appear that you have no understanding of what the law
details as your rights. On the US a person with Tb can and will be
detained and forced to undergo treatment under the law. In the past
quarantines were enforced under the law with prison sentences for
attempts to tell people it was ok to break quarantine. Recently a
person was detained and forced to undergo treatment under forced
restraints. The court judges refused to hear his case at all.

>That is logic Frank.

No it isn't logic. It also isn't the law.

>>That means if the anti vaccine is a real church it can not be
>>qualified to make a comment about vaccines.
>
>I doesn't make comment about vaccines, merely that a person is free to
>choose on whatever grounds.

The law states otherwise, it seems. How long it will take the courts
to decide law the law says will take time.

>>or
>>It means they are not a real church and thus not subject to religious
>>rights of freedom.
>
>
>Personal integrity of the person's being means they are free sovereign
>beings, free to choose in what they will or will not partake. The
>church is a refuge to escape from tyrrany of government dictates.

and that is not true at all. Especially since you are still
considered to all intents a Crown subject. Or didn't you understand
you own laws?

>Same as if a person objects to war they should be able to be a
>conscientious objector and not have to partake in killing of other
>people.

You don't understand the law or rules dealing with C.O. status.

>>
>>They can not be both.

>You have proven over and over that you don't understand logic, are
>biased and have preconceived ideas.

However not one of your objections actually address the issue in the
initial statement or the logical fallacy included in it.

All you done, carole, is introduce red herrings as distractions and
strawman arguments.

>Get a life and go back to your rock collection

Typical carole. Sad.


--
Bob Officer
Carole Hubbard stuns the world showing her belief that 2+2 = 3 or 5 says to me
"And one day they might find a cause for your lack of cognitive ability in
putting 2+2 together and coming up with 4 instead of 3 or 5."
in Message-ID:
<f61b82a3-85de-43b2...@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:14:03 +1200, in misc.health.alternative,

The good old days ...
sitting on the edge of a abyss
Alas, ArchieP, we knew you well

[Clayton]

It depends on your POV.
According to the information put out by mainstream, not vaccinating
children is irresponsible.
Yet OTOH there are no long-term studies showing that vaccinated are
healthier / as healthy as unvaccinated.
Also that these diseases were on the decline well before vaccination
began and vaccinated children may be more likely to develop
auto-immune diseases such as allergies and asthma which are on the
increase. Modern medicine is at a loss to explain why these diseases
are on the increase and also why the rise in autism.
Yet it claims to know that vaccines are in our best interests.

It is within my rights to be the best judge of whatever information
comes my way, whether it is worthy or not.
Modern medicine only seems to know what is best when it is in the
interests of corporate medicine.

>
>>A person is in charge of their own body and should be free to say "no,
>>I don't want mercury, formaldahyde or aluminum, monkey virus or
>>chicken viruses insected into my body".
>
>"insected"? carole the IfDU strikes again. mayle she believe vaccines
>are injected by mosquitos

A typo - should have been injected.

>
>However your "logic" is false and based upon your personal ignorance
>and no it appear that you have no understanding of what the law
>details as your rights.

You are a person of ignorance.

>On the US a person with Tb can and will be
>detained and forced to undergo treatment under the law. In the past
>quarantines were enforced under the law with prison sentences for
>attempts to tell people it was ok to break quarantine. Recently a
>person was detained and forced to undergo treatment under forced
>restraints. The court judges refused to hear his case at all.

There are different ways of looking at that.
You have a person with an actual disease for starters.
I guess it all depends on whether you believe in pre-emptive war - war
to prevent war.

Also there is the factor of suppressed cures - so I tend to err on the
side of personal sovereignty over government mandates.

>
>>That is logic Frank.
>
>No it isn't logic. It also isn't the law.
>
>>>That means if the anti vaccine is a real church it can not be
>>>qualified to make a comment about vaccines.
>>
>>I doesn't make comment about vaccines, merely that a person is free to
>>choose on whatever grounds.
>
>The law states otherwise, it seems. How long it will take the courts
>to decide law the law says will take time.
>
>>>or
>>>It means they are not a real church and thus not subject to religious
>>>rights of freedom.
>>
>>
>>Personal integrity of the person's being means they are free sovereign
>>beings, free to choose in what they will or will not partake. The
>>church is a refuge to escape from tyrrany of government dictates.
>
>and that is not true at all. Especially since you are still
>considered to all intents a Crown subject. Or didn't you understand
>you own laws?

We live in a democracy Fred. Personal sovereignty is the right of each
individual rather than being dictated to. And another factor is that
so much information is withheld from the people,
You've got to remember Fred, that all governments devolve to tyranny
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>
>>Same as if a person objects to war they should be able to be a
>>conscientious objector and not have to partake in killing of other
>>people.
>
>You don't understand the law or rules dealing with C.O. status.

The law can be an ASS Fred.
If laws are wrong they can be changed.
they are not the be-all and end-all of what is correct or desirable.
As society evolves laws change.

>
>>>
>>>They can not be both.
>
>>You have proven over and over that you don't understand logic, are
>>biased and have preconceived ideas.
>
>However not one of your objections actually address the issue in the
>initial statement or the logical fallacy included in it.
>
>All you done, carole, is introduce red herrings as distractions and
>strawman arguments.

Why do you keep calling me Carole when I have made it clear I am
Clayton?
Are you a moron?

>
>>Get a life and go back to your rock collection
>
>Typical carole. Sad.

Yes, you began trying to dominate people in sci.geo.geology ng, then
for some unknown reason moved over to mha.

You're a sad and sorry excuse of a human being who prefers to have
government dictate your conditions rather than people free to decide.

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:19:37 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

No it depends on evidence.

>According to the information put out by mainstream, not vaccinating
>children is irresponsible.

That's a fact. have you ever seen a child with whooping cough? I
have. Did you attend school with a kid that wore braces because of
polio, only after they spent a few years in an iron lung? I did.

>Yet OTOH there are no long-term studies showing that vaccinated are
>healthier / as healthy as unvaccinated.

That is an untruth and has been pointed out with references before.
You simply refuse to read them.

>Also that these diseases were on the decline well before vaccination
>began and vaccinated children may be more likely to develop

Wrong, someone is feeding you misleading facts. The deaths from these
diseases drop but not the rate of infections.

>auto-immune diseases such as allergies and asthma which are on the
>increase.

Because modern medicine treats these conditions and people are not
dying from them.

>Modern medicine is at a loss to explain why these diseases
>are on the increase and also why the rise in autism.

Not they are not. Survival of people from disease or condition which
killed before modern medicine. Autism is the caused by de novo
mutation.

You seem to be stuck in some middle age fantasy, carole.

>Yet it claims to know that vaccines are in our best interests.

IT is the truth, after all.

>It is within my rights to be the best judge of whatever information
>comes my way, whether it is worthy or not.

Not it isn't. simply because you lack the necessary skill to read and
make judgements. The fact that you are basically lazy and that makes
you stupid, means you do not have the rights to make the "best
judgement" for yourself. you are basically incompetent to make some
decisions about yourself and you own well being.

>Modern medicine only seems to know what is best when it is in the
>interests of corporate medicine.

False statement of a uneducated person with a openly biased POV.

I state it this way carole the criminal always has the opinion he
should not be held to the standards of society. IT is his POV. Your
POV is just like the that criminal.

>>>A person is in charge of their own body and should be free to say "no,
>>>I don't want mercury, formaldahyde or aluminum, monkey virus or
>>>chicken viruses insected into my body".
>>
>>"insected"? carole the IfDU strikes again. mayle she believe vaccines
>>are injected by mosquitos
>
>A typo - should have been injected.
>
>>
>>However your "logic" is false and based upon your personal ignorance
>>and no it appear that you have no understanding of what the law
>>details as your rights.
>
>You are a person of ignorance.

Sure carole, tell us again how you add 2=2 and get 3 or 5 for an
answer?

>>On the US a person with Tb can and will be
>>detained and forced to undergo treatment under the law. In the past
>>quarantines were enforced under the law with prison sentences for
>>attempts to tell people it was ok to break quarantine. Recently a
>>person was detained and forced to undergo treatment under forced
>>restraints. The court judges refused to hear his case at all.
>
>There are different ways of looking at that.

No there isn't.

>You have a person with an actual disease for starters.
>I guess it all depends on whether you believe in pre-emptive war - war
>to prevent war.

Poor analogy, carole, the sign of a weak mind.

>Also there is the factor of suppressed cures - so I tend to err on the
>side of personal sovereignty over government mandates.

They are suppressed, they simply do not work. Not one bit of evidence
to show they work at all.

>>
>>>That is logic Frank.
>>
>>No it isn't logic. It also isn't the law.
>>
>>>>That means if the anti vaccine is a real church it can not be
>>>>qualified to make a comment about vaccines.
>>>
>>>I doesn't make comment about vaccines, merely that a person is free to
>>>choose on whatever grounds.
>>
>>The law states otherwise, it seems. How long it will take the courts
>>to decide law the law says will take time.
>>
>>>>or
>>>>It means they are not a real church and thus not subject to religious
>>>>rights of freedom.
>>>
>>>
>>>Personal integrity of the person's being means they are free sovereign
>>>beings, free to choose in what they will or will not partake. The
>>>church is a refuge to escape from tyrrany of government dictates.
>>
>>and that is not true at all. Especially since you are still
>>considered to all intents a Crown subject. Or didn't you understand
>>you own laws?
>
>We live in a democracy Fred. Personal sovereignty is the right of each
>individual rather than being dictated to. And another factor is that
>so much information is withheld from the people,

Not in the OZ the UK or even Canada. The US grants certain limited
liberty's to it citizens. But they are not ever "sovereign". I
suggest you reread what the word "sovereign" means.

>You've got to remember Fred, that all governments devolve to tyranny
>and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And that bit of wisdom is just another attempt to distract from the
illogic of the inital statement by you.

>>
>>>Same as if a person objects to war they should be able to be a
>>>conscientious objector and not have to partake in killing of other
>>>people.
>>
>>You don't understand the law or rules dealing with C.O. status.
>
>The law can be an ASS Fred.

You brought it up carole. if you don't understand what the says or
means that's not my problem. it doesn't say or mean what you believe
it does. That's your problem.

>If laws are wrong they can be changed.

Good luck with that.

>they are not the be-all and end-all of what is correct or desirable.
>As society evolves laws change.

That your belief, but it isn't reflected by reality.

>>>>They can not be both.
>>
>>>You have proven over and over that you don't understand logic, are
>>>biased and have preconceived ideas.
>>
>>However not one of your objections actually address the issue in the
>>initial statement or the logical fallacy included in it.
>>
>>All you done, carole, is introduce red herrings as distractions and
>>strawman arguments.
>
>Why do you keep calling me Carole when I have made it clear I am
>Clayton?
>Are you a moron?

No you are carole, you even in the past signed your message as
carole. You are a simple sock. Even carole is silly enough to create
a fake persona named clayton which is literally means a fake.

>>>Get a life and go back to your rock collection
>>
>>Typical carole. Sad.
>
>Yes, you began trying to dominate people in sci.geo.geology ng, then
>for some unknown reason moved over to mha.

right carole ... if you want to believe that, go ahead. By the same
logical I could say you were in Sci.geo and followed me here. I was
here for nearly a year before you showed up.

>You're a sad and sorry excuse of a human being who prefers to have
>government dictate your conditions rather than people free to decide.

But, that's not true.


--
Bob Officer
Message-ID: <c74f794e-d25a-4153...@d2g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
"I just think of it as background noise.
It helps give mha more validity by increasing group activity."
Carole justifying chung's postings.
Then she demands I "do" something about him:
Message-ID: <0fc33205-d6e0-41ab...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
"All I'm saying is if you find chung as annoying and ridiculous as the
rest of us, instead of blocking him out you should take him to task.

and now you see why carole is considered confused.

[Reg Griswold]

Not really - evidence can be falsified such as all the drugs that get
tested as safe then turn out to kill people. These were all tested for
safety.

>
>>According to the information put out by mainstream, not vaccinating
>>children is irresponsible.
>
>That's a fact. have you ever seen a child with whooping cough? I
>have. Did you attend school with a kid that wore braces because of
>polio, only after they spent a few years in an iron lung? I did.

Do you remember how sister kenny improved the lot of polio sufferers
with her treatment, yet she was only a nurse? This is the mindset of
the medical system where they are immune to common sense.

Have you ever seen a child with autism, or a child struggling to get a
breath because they have asthma?

>
>>Yet OTOH there are no long-term studies showing that vaccinated are
>>healthier / as healthy as unvaccinated.
>
>That is an untruth and has been pointed out with references before.
>You simply refuse to read them.

No, that is true - there are NO long-term studies comparing the health
of vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

>
>>Also that these diseases were on the decline well before vaccination
>>began and vaccinated children may be more likely to develop
>
>Wrong, someone is feeding you misleading facts. The deaths from these
>diseases drop but not the rate of infections.

No, there are graphs showing that these diseases were on the decline
due to improved sanitation and improved nutrition.
Why do you insist on sticking to lies?

>
>
>>auto-immune diseases such as allergies and asthma which are on the
>>increase.
>
>Because modern medicine treats these conditions and people are not
>dying from them.

All that proves is that modern medicine likes to keep people
chronically sick as it is more profitable. Modern medicine is run by
corporations which need a profit to justify their existence, making a
profit is their prime objective - over anything else.
You know this but insist on justifying the system that is corrupt. I
don't think there's much hope for you.



Its really not worth talking to people who don't recognise corruption
when they see it.

[Bob Officer]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:40:30 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

Small scale test and were monitored and pulled when shown to be
dangerous on large scale. Would you like to mention the people that
have been seriously hurt and died from using "alternative"
treatments?

>>>According to the information put out by mainstream, not vaccinating
>>>children is irresponsible.
>>
>>That's a fact. have you ever seen a child with whooping cough? I
>>have. Did you attend school with a kid that wore braces because of
>>polio, only after they spent a few years in an iron lung? I did.
>
>Do you remember how sister kenny improved the lot of polio sufferers
>with her treatment, yet she was only a nurse? This is the mindset of
>the medical system where they are immune to common sense.

yet she didn't cure anyone, did she? she didn't prevent the spread of
the disease at all. (does anyone else see red herrings)

>
>Have you ever seen a child with autism, or a child struggling to get a
>breath because they have asthma?

yes, without modern medicine this people with asthma would be dead.
Didn't you know asthma is not new, nor autism.

Carole you forget I worked at a camp as director, which would host
children with autism and other disabilities. (maybe I should mention
I myself have asthma, and seem to get along fine. I suspect carole
doesn't understand what asthma is and the fact there are several
different types of asthma. )

>>>Yet OTOH there are no long-term studies showing that vaccinated are
>>>healthier / as healthy as unvaccinated.
>>
>>That is an untruth and has been pointed out with references before.
>>You simply refuse to read them.
>
>No, that is true - there are NO long-term studies comparing the health
>of vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

Actually there are and they have been cited here, over and over
again. you refuse to follow the links that's your problem, not mine.
I do not know just where you got the idea there have been no long
term studies, but that claim is totally false.

For instance the tetanus vaccine has been under long term study since
1926. nearly 90 years. The findings in those people which keep their
tetanus vaccine up to date, they didn't get tetanus. Have you ever
seen any with tetanus, carole? It should be a concern to any active
gardener.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus_vaccine
<Cite>

Complications of tetanus

Tetanus is a potentially life threatening disease because the
bacteria attacks the neural system which can lead to muscle spasms
resulting in broken bones or torn muscles. Furthermore, tetanus can
lead to airway obstruction, respiratory arrest, heart failure,
pneumonia, fractures, and brain damage.[2] Vaccines help to reduce
the risk of contracting tetanus (and these complications) which is
why it is encouraged to receive the tetanus vaccine and booster
shots.

Effectiveness

Since the discovery and productions of the tetanus vaccines, the
occurrence of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis has decreased. Using
US population derived figures, following vaccination, 95% of people
are protected from diphtheria, 80 to 85% of people are protected from
pertussis, and 100% of people are protected from tetanus.[3] Before
the vaccine there was an average of 580 annual cases of tetanus and
472 annual deaths from tetanus. But since the vaccine there is an
average of 41 annual cases of tetanus and 4 annual deaths from
tetanus. This is 93% reduction in occurrence of tetanus and a 99%
reduction in fatalities resulting from tetanus.[3]

The licensing and distribution of these vaccines are monitored by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to maintain the safety of these
vaccinations in the United States.[3]

[2] ^ a b c d e f "Vaccines: VPD-VAC/Tetanus/main page". Centers for
Disease Control. Retrieved 2012-06-04.

[3] ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (2011). "Tetanus" (pdf). Epidemiology and Prevention of
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (CDC, Epidemiology and Prevention of
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Washington, D.C: Public Health
Foundation. ISBN 0-01-706609-3. Retrieved <-06-04.
</cite>

>>>Also that these diseases were on the decline well before vaccination
>>>began and vaccinated children may be more likely to develop
>>
>>Wrong, someone is feeding you misleading facts. The deaths from these
>>diseases drop but not the rate of infections.
>
>No, there are graphs showing that these diseases were on the decline
>due to improved sanitation and improved nutrition.
>Why do you insist on sticking to lies?

The graphs show the decline in "deaths", not the "incidence" of the
disease. The decline in deaths were due to antibiotics and other
anti-sepsis actions. This is case where your lack of critical
thinking and reading comprehension skills are a serious problem. It
seems you have problems understanding data.

>>>auto-immune diseases such as allergies and asthma which are on the
>>>increase.
>>
>>Because modern medicine treats these conditions and people are not
>>dying from them.
>
>All that proves is that modern medicine likes to keep people
>chronically sick as it is more profitable. Modern medicine is run by
>corporations which need a profit to justify their existence, making a
>profit is their prime objective - over anything else.

In my case my asthma is a respiratory reaction to a certain type of
wild plant and its pollens and oils. the condition is fully
controlled. There is no cure for the allergen agent even the "shots"
seems to be non-effective over a long range. Will the allergic
reaction go away sooner or later, time will tell. BTW the plant is
listed as mildly toxic to people, but not "contact". I became
sensitized to it after inhaling smoke from a wildfire which burned
several 100 acres covered with this weed/plant.

>You know this but insist on justifying the system that is corrupt. I
>don't think there's much hope for you.

Try to use evidence and logic carole not a belief system based upon
dogma. There is not hope for you.

>Its really not worth talking to people who don't recognise corruption
>when they see it.

you seem to do it well. of course you, carole and your host of socks
could just chatter among yourselves. It is if watching an uninspired
dunham taking to puppets which are no brighter than you are carole.
You see Jeff is a brilliant talents and you are a simpleton know
nothing. In the end your puppets are just dull reflection of a self
confessed idiot.