Examples of Disreputable Sources

160 views
Skip to first unread message

George Schiro

unread,
Feb 22, 2015, 5:36:35 PM2/22/15
to gg
How do we judge the credibility of sources of information, specifically
sources of evidence, especially those referenced online?

Here's how (according to Purdue University, itself a well known and credible
source, see "Using Research and Evidence", http://tinyurl.com/kwstomp ):

What type of evidence should I use?

There are two types of evidence.

First hand research is research you have conducted
yourself such as interviews, experiments, surveys,
or personal experience and anecdotes.

Second hand research is research you are getting
from various texts that has been supplied and
compiled by others such as books, periodicals, and
Web sites.

Regardless of what type of sources you use, they
must be credible. In other words, your sources must
be reliable, accurate, and trustworthy.

How do I know if a source is credible?

You can ask the following questions to determine if
a source is credible.

[1] Who is the author? Credible sources are written
by authors respected in their fields of study. ...

[2] How recent is the source? The choice to seek
recent sources depends on your topic. ...

[3] What is the author's purpose? When deciding
which sources to use, you should take the purpose
or point of view of the author into consideration.
Is the author presenting a neutral, objective view
of a topic? Or is the author advocating one
specific view of a topic? Who is funding the
research or writing of this source? A source
written from a particular point of view may be
credible; however, you need to be careful that your
sources don't limit your coverage of a topic to one
side of a debate.

[4] What type of sources does your audience value?
If you are writing for a professional or academic
audience, they may value peer-reviewed journals as
the most credible sources of information. If you
are writing for a group of residents in your
hometown, they might be more comfortable with
mainstream sources, such as Time or Newsweek. ...

[5] Be especially careful when evaluating Internet
sources! ...

Note: I added the question numbers [1] through [5].

What follows are 3 sources recently offered in this forum to support the
anti-vaccine position.

1) http://therefusers.com (from http://tinyurl.com/ltlondj )

WA's GMO foods labeling initiative is nation's ballot
measure to watch ... Both sides are getting creative. A
band called the Refusers has created a music video here
that supports GMO labeling. It has gone viral with
262,000 hits

A Bainbridge Island dad started the protest rock band,
The Refusers, 10 years after his infant daughter died
from a Hepatitis B vaccine. He's rock, funk, reggae and
blues ...

SEATTLE - A local band's controversial song is taking the
Internet by storm ... The Refusers make funk rock with a
message.

The message is that parents can refuse vaccines for
their children. Their title song is a rip on the
Hippocratic Oath doctors take to practice medicine
ethically, to "first do no harm."

The author of "The Refusers" blog site, Michael Belkin, is a bereaved
parent. He is also a musician. His baby daughter died. He claims his
daughter was killed by a vaccine. This may be true. We have no way of
knowing for sure from his site. According to the Purdue research method,
this source is not credible due to questions [1] (not respected in the field
of vaccine research), [3] (not neutral or objective - his agenda is to
discredit the industry he holds responsible for his daughter's death), [4]
(authored no peer-reviewed articles or books, nor vetted by credible news
sources).

2) http://healthimpactnews.com (from http://tinyurl.com/lyrvp94 )

We currently cover 6 broad topics:

1. Medical Watch

Mainstream media today receives significant advertising
revenue from the pharmaceutical industry, and seldom
does investigative reporting on issues challenging the
monopoly on medicine that is controlled by government
agencies such as the FDA, CDC, NIH, and others.

Our primary trending topics in Medical Watch at this
time are:

Vaccine Safety

For examples of stories on vaccine safety that are
censored in mainstream media and that are trending here
on Health Impact News, see:

...


2. Alternative Health

In our Alternative Health section we feature stories on
alternative healing methods that are NOT approved by
the FDA, and in many cases where the FDA feels
threatened with the competition for its approved
pharmaceutical products.

...

3. Real Food Nutrition

In our Real Food Nutrition section we cover news and
issues that are directly opposed to the mainstream
media's promotion of nutrition according to the USDA
dietary guidelines.

...

4. Sustainable Agriculture

With only a handful of companies now controlling most
of America's food supply, we cover the issues largely
ignored in the mainstream media regarding the dangers
of modern biotechnology and the contamination of our
food supply that is contributing to so many health
issues.

...

5. Coconut Health

This is our area of specialty, being the leading
publisher on Coconut Health since 2001. Our Coconut
Health category publishes news, research, and
testimonials regarding the health benefits of coconut
oil and other coconut products. Virgin Coconut Oil
today is being used in ketogenic types of diets in
treating neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's
Disease. You will find all the latest research here, as
well as on our original site, CoconutOil.com.

Happy senior citizen woman at home looking at her
daughter

Virgin Coconut Oil Beats Drugs in Treating Alzheimer's

[Note: http://coconutoil.com is an oil sales site linked
to http://tropicaltraditions.com (also owned by the same
people). It includes a link to "How I Found Peace with
God" which describes the author's past drug habit and
suicidal thoughts. The referenced site itself includes
on its home page under "Recent News" a link to "Healing
from Jesus is More Effective than Our Current
Healthcare System", http://tinyurl.com/mjzgoro ]

6. Created4Health

The Created4Health category is our least published
category, but it is by far the most important one. The
foundation for anyone's health is their belief system.
The modern-day agricultural industry and medical
industry is the result of more than 2 generations of
Darwinian-dominated biology and science in our
educational institutes. Anything referencing the spirit
world or the non-physical aspects of life are either
ignored or denied, and critical thinking in this area
is for the most part not tolerated. The result is that
we have lifted up "science" to a whole new platform
that results in "scientism," and a new set of beliefs
that are not scientific at all. The Arts and Humanities
are seen as inferior, and we have produced a highly
technical culture based on modern technology, which can
never produce true health.

We publish articles in this category from the senior
editor of Health Impact News, Brian Shilhavy, that look
at the ancient cultures in the Bible and how they
viewed health. We also feature writers and articles
from the Discovery Institute and other places that view
science from an Intelligent Design perspective.

molech-child-sacrifice

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

humanities

Scientism Aims to Destroy the Humanities

Molecular-Thoughts-Science

The Limitations of Science and the Medical Paradigm

This site is just one among a network of sites owned and operated by Brian
Shilhavy and dedicated to selling alternatives to science based medicine and
health.

The author of the "Health Impact News" site, Brian Shilhavy, sells
alternative healthcare products online. According to the Purdue research
method, this source is not credible due to questions [1] (not respected in
the field of vaccine research), [3] (not neutral or objective - his agenda
is to sell alternative healthcare products and to discredit science in
general), [4] (authored no peer-reviewed articles or books, nor vetted by
credible news sources).

3) http://vaxtruth.org (from http://tinyurl.com/lrqqmuu )

Marcella Piper-Terry has a master's degree in
psychology and has worked as a therapist and as a
neuropsychological evaluator of children and adults.
She has worked as a DAN provider and consultant
assisting families employing biomedical interventions
for their children. She is also the mother of a
vaccine-injured child. She founded VaxTruth along with
my colleagues, Megan and Spencer Pond in the fall of
2011.

[Note: this site is also referenced by the first of the 3
sites above, see "Dr. Oz Warns About Mercury in Flu Shots",
http://tinyurl.com/kzv8qd2 ]

The author of the "Vax Truth" site, Marcella Piper-Terry, is an angry
parent. She believes her daughter was vaccine-damaged. This may be true. We
have no way of knowing for sure from her site. According to the Purdue
research method, this source is not credible due to questions [1] (not
respected in the field of vaccine research), [3] (not neutral or objective,
her agenda is to discredit the industry she holds responsible for her
daughter's suffering), [4] (authored no peer-reviewed articles or books, nor
vetted by credible news sources).

The rational conclusion therefore is that not one of these sources offers
credible evidence to support any position for or against vaccines or
vaccination.

These are not reputable sources. Anyone using these sources to support or
oppose vaccination or vaccine science clearly does not understand the
culture or method of science.

Reputable sources on the subject of vaccines and vaccination are respected
in the field of vaccine research. They offer independent agenda-free
evidence and they publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and
books. Alternatively, credible evidence appears in nationally or
internationally known and respected news publications which adhere to long
established and transparent journalistic standards.

Dave Leeman

unread,
Mar 4, 2015, 1:33:37 PM3/4/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com, Harm...@googlegroups.com
Forum readers, we see again that Mr Schiro is an unfair moderator. I have already attempted to post refuting Mr Schiro’s bogus disreputable sources claim. He has not seen fit to allow that post to go through. Meanwhile, he has posted five times since my last post without allowing me a response.


The basis of Mr Schiro’s claim is that the links go to web sites of people with an agenda. Here are his words,

“ (bereaved and angry parents) while the third is a snake oil salesman who uses anti-science to sell alternative healthcare products”.

What Mr Schiro fails to mention, is that those articles I link to are all about studies by reputable scientists published in reputable places. Does he leave out this detail on purpose?

Mr Schiro lists healthimpactnews.com as disreputable because they have an agenda. Well, it may be true that they have an agenda, but the article I linked to cites several articles from “reputable sources”.

Conrad et al. (1971) published about the dynamics of measles in the US in the last four years and conceded that measles was on the increase and that “eradication, if possible, now seems far in the future”.

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance”.

To cap it all: the largely unvaccinated Amish (they claim religious exemption) had not reported a single case of measles between 1970 and December 1987, for 18 years (Sutter et al. 1991). It is quite likely that a similar situation would have applied to outside communities without any vaccination and that measles vaccination had actually kept measles alive and kicking. According to Hedrich (1933), there is a variety of dynamics of measles occurrence, from 2-3 years to up to 18 years, as later also witnessed by the unvaccinated Amish.

Here are the references at the end of the article (read both part 1 and part 2 to find them.)

Ronne T. 1985. Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to diseases in adult life. Lancet; 5 Jan: 1-5.

West RO. 1966. Epidemiologic studies of malignancies of the ovaries. Cancer; 1001-1007.

Albonico H et al 1990. Vaccination campaign against measles, mumps and rubella, A constraining project for a dubious future? Working group of doctors for selective MMR vaccination.18 pages, self-published.

Sheheen et al. 1996. Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau. Lancet; 347: 1792-1796.

Alm et al. (1999). Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet; 353: 1485-1488.

Carmon Mota H. 1973. Infantile Hodgkins’disease: remission after measles. BMJ; 19May: 423.

Msaouel P, et al. 2009. Clinical testing of engineered oncolytic measles virus strains in the treatment of cancer: An overview. Curr Opin Mol Ther; February; 11(1): 43-53.

Mackowiak PA. 1981. Direct effects of hyperthermia on pathogenic microorganisms: teleologic implications with regard to fever. Rev Infect Dis; 3(3).

Koprowski H. 1962. The role of hyperergy in measles encephalitis. Am J Dis Child; 103:103-108.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/well-managed-natural-infectious-diseases-are-beneficial-for-children/#sthash.8zAczCfv.dpuf

So lets look at just the first of these.

Barratta et al. (1970)

This article was published in Pediatrics the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics

See here

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/46/3/397.abstract

Is the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics “reputable” enough for Mr Schiro?

Mr Schiro also lists therefusers.com as “disreputable”, because they have an agenda. Well they do have an agenda, but if you go to the article I linked to, you get a list of six people with adverse reactions to the vaccine, complete with the Vaers ID number. {FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}
So the author is citing reputable data to show that more people have adverse reactions to the vaccine than die from measles.

“the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported today … none (of the measles cases) had encephalitis and none died.”

So, again, the agenda of the writer does NOT mean that the data is “disreputable”.

Another article I linked to at healthimpactnews.com is not the full article. It links to the full article here

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/01/18/the-ineffectiveness-of-measles-vaccines-and-other-unintended-consequences-by-dr-viera-scheibner-phd

That’s the International Medical Council on Vaccination. If that’s not “reputable” enough for Mr Schiro, the article cites 14 different sources. Are all of those sources also “disreputable”?

Of course, Mr Schiro only mentions the ones he considers “disreputable”, as if they were the only ones I linked to. I also cited this link, which Mr Schiro conveniently doesn’t mention.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

Is the CDC “reputable” enough for Mr Schiro?

How about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

That’s nih.gov You know the National Institute of Health.

Is the NIH “reputable” enough for Mr Schiro?


I linked to several other articles that Mr Schiro fails to mention. So I ask Mr Schiro, and you Mr Ryan,

Is Ben Swann disreputable?
Is Slate.com disreputable?
Is CBSNews.com disreputable?
Is the CDC disreputable?
Is the National Institutes of Health disreputable?

And lastly I ask once again.
Is Big Pharma “reputable”? Why would anyone trust them to tell the truth when billions ride on the answer?

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 5, 2015, 8:49:00 AM3/5/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Dave wrote:

Forum readers, we see again that Mr Schiro is an unfair
moderator. I have already attempted to post refuting
Mr Schiro’s bogus disreputable sources claim. He has
not seen fit to allow that post to go through.
Meanwhile, he has posted five times since my last post
without allowing me a response.

It's really too bad you think it was unfair you were asked to wait until my
dialog with Stacy was finished Dave. Perhaps if you had less free time on
your hands waiting might have been less of a disappointment to you.

Dave wrote:

What Mr Schiro fails to mention, is that those articles
I link to are all about studies by reputable scientists
published in reputable places. Does he leave out this
detail on purpose?

Yes, I left out that detail on purpose. Why? Because it's a joke. Again,
anyone pandering to the masses on some disreputable website can make up any
phony references they want to. Why? Because there is no reputable group of
experts around to validate their claims or their references. Such websites
are free to lie at will.

You know Dave, you are one funny character. It is not easy to take you
seriously. How does one respond to such never ending silliness?

I will try the same thing with you Dave that I did with my octogenarian
father. He often gets confused by what he sees flying through his inbox. I
have had to tell him several times, please at least check with Snopes for
the veracity of whatever potential nonsense you receive before forwarding
it. It's simply a matter of taking the time and effort to do searches by a
fragment of text in quotation marks with sufficient uniqueness to limit the
results.

I don't think you are quite in your eighties yet Dave, but clearly you need
the same advice. Check out the nonsense before you put your (and by
extension, Stacy's) stamp of approval on it.

Here's a hint Dave. Let's see if you can do this yourself. Take a look at
the first reference on your current list that seems to support your
position. It contains a quotation which can be verified quickly and easily.
Here's another hint: "Robertson."

Since you have all the free time on your hands (and I don't), please at
least do that much yourself Dave. Of course my suggestion presupposes your
goal is to get to the truth rather than to hide it.

Stacy McCland

unread,
Mar 5, 2015, 6:11:02 PM3/5/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
George,

Your email to Dave is so condescending and personal. It doesn't seem fit for what is supposed to be a conversation about an important issue.

Stacy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HarmonyFL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harmonyfl+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/4FAED610002B4AB895294B9ACC2890B8%40MAIN.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Stacy McCland, Esq.
136 Rachel Lin Lane
Saint Cloud, FL  34771
407-957-6794

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 5, 2015, 6:16:59 PM3/5/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Stacy wrote:
 
    Your email to Dave is so condescending and personal. It
    doesn't seem fit for what is supposed to be a
    conversation about an important issue.
 
I agree Stacy.
 
Dave I apologize. Please look into the given reference more analytically and let us know if you still feel it is a reputable source.

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 11, 2015, 7:18:33 PM3/11/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Stacy wrote:
 
    George, I have been working non-stop since 4am, and
    tomorrow will be the same. I will get back to this when
    I get a free moment which may be the weekend.
 
No problem Stacy. Thank you for letting us know.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:
harm...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harm...@googlegroups.com]On
Behalf Of Stacy McCland
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:03 PM
To:
harm...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Examples of Disreputable Sources
 

George, I have been working non-stop since 4am, and tomorrow will be the same. I will get back to this when I get a free moment which may be the weekend.
 
Stacy
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:
harm...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harm...@googlegroups.com]On
Behalf Of George Schiro
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:25 AM
To: gg
Subject: RE: Examples of Disreputable Sources
 

Stacy wrote:
 
    Your email to Dave is so condescending and personal. It
    doesn't seem fit for what is supposed to be a
    conversation about an important issue.
 
So I wrote:
 
    Dave I apologize. Please look into the given reference
    more analytically and let us know if you still feel it
    is a reputable source.
 
Well it's been almost a week. After posting barrages of 3 or 4 messages per
day on a related topic, it would appear Dave has nothing further to say in
support of his source claimed as reputable.
 
Since you agree that this is an important issue Stacy, perhaps you can
continue where Dave left off. Bear in mind that the "Robertson" source Dave
claimed as reputable, you also claimed as reputable.
 
Stacy, please show us verification that the "Robertson" source is indeed
reputable as claimed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/F5D9A5283C104BA48DE0E2145BEFBE0F%40MAIN.

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 12, 2015, 9:36:02 PM3/12/15
to gg
In the mean time, while waiting for Stacy to complete her research on the "Robertson" source, here's what I found with my cursory look. Maybe this will save Stacy some time. Remember, it only takes a few minutes to actually take a closer look at something like this (it takes a lot longer to write about it).
 
After I presented my case for why the "healthimpactnews.com" website is a disreputable source on vaccination (or pretty much anything else, see "Examples of Disreputable Sources", http://tinyurl.com/lmko83k ), David Leeman responded with the following in support of "healthimpactnews.com" as a reputable source on vaccination:
 
    Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986.
    152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had previously received
    measles vaccine. "Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge
    of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance".
 
To verify Dave's primary source (ie. "healthimpactnews.com's" primary source), here's what I did.
 
First I googled this:
 
    "Robertson et al. (1992)"    (quotation marks included)
 
That gives about 99,000 results. Here are the top 10:
 
    [PDF] Liquefaction Resistance Based on Shear Wave
    Velocity fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build98/PDF/b98013.pdf
    1991a; Robertson et al. 1992; Kayen et al. 1992; Andrus
    1994; Lodge. 1994). The use of V5 as an index of
    liquefaction resistance is justi?ed since both V5 and.
 
    [PDF] ANDERSON, WENDY L., DALE M. ROBERTSON, AND ...
    mediteran.aslo.net/lo/toc/vol_41/issue_5/0815.pdf by WL
    Anderson - ?1996 - ?Cited by 113 - ?Related articles
    Barry 1986; Robertson et al. 1992; Reycraft and
    Skinner. 1993). Changes in the general timing of freeze
    and break- up have been used as indicators of climate
    ...
 
    Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts under
    various ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/... National Center
    for Biotechnology Information by LJ Robertson - ?1992 -
    ?Cited by 461 - ?Related articles Abstract. The
    survival of various isolates of Cryptosporidium parvum
    oocysts under a range of environmental pressures
    including freezing, desiccation, and ...
 
    [PDF]2-51 cpt10.com/PDF_Files/2-51Robehc.pdf by PK
    Robertson - ?Cited by 15 - ?Related articles patible
    units. Schmertmann (1978), Parez and Fauriel (1988) and
    Robertson et al (1992) suggested methods to estimate
    soil permeability (k) using the time for ...
 
    [PDF]Download PDF - Womack and Associates
    waigeo.com/pdf/Proceedings%20for%20Geo-Institute.pdf
    estimated for values of Vs1 using a chart from
    Robertson, et al (1992). The equivalent uniform cyclic
    stress ratio (CSR)l,field necessary to cause
    liquefaction and ...
 
    [PDF]Tree Swallow www.epa.gov/.../EcoRisk... United
    States Environmental Protection Agency varies
    seasonally, but typically averages 21 g during the
    breeding season, independent of sex. (Robertson et al.
    1992). In The Primary Study Area: No body size ...
 
    Foodborne Parasites - Page 84 - Google Books Result
    https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0387311971 Ynes R.
    Ortega - 2006 - ?Medical ... (Robertson et al., 1992)
    57–66 (Robertson et al., 1992) 22–31 (Robertson et al.,
    1992) 3–4 (Robertson et al., 1992) 37 (Robertson et
    al., 1992) 30 (Robertson ...
 
    Handbook of Microdialysis: Methods, Applications and
    ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0080469663 2007
    - ?Medical 1; Bertorelli and Consolo, 1990; Damsma et
    al., 1990a, b, 1991; De Boer et al., 1990, 1992;
    Robertson et al., 1992; Zocchi and Pert, 1993; Anderson
    et al., 1994; ...
 
    Monoaminergic Modulation of Cortical Excitability
    https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0387722564
    Kuei-Yuan Tseng, ?Marco Atzori - 2007 - ?Medical ...
    whereas blockade of D2 receptors increases IEG
    expression in these neurons (Robertson and Fibiger,
    1992; Robertson et al., 1992), responses that are c-fos
    ...
 
    American Psychiatric Press Review of Psychiatry
    https://books.google.com/books?isbn=088048442X Leah J.
    Dickstein, ?John M. Oldham, ?Michelle B. Riba - 1996 -
    ?Medical 1992) and c-Fos-like immunoreactivity
    (Dragunow et al. 1990; Nguyen et al. 1992; Robertson et
    al. 1992) in the caudate-putamen as well as in the
    limbic regions ...
 
As you can see, there is nothing in the top 10 results about vaccines or vaccination. Perhaps something can be found about vaccination research among the other 98,990 results. That will be for Stacy to determine. So who knows what subject matter "Robertson et al. (1992)" actually refers to.
 
Then, to narrow the results, I googled this:
 
    "Robertson et al. (1992)" "Every 2-3 years, there is an
    upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance"
 
    (again, quotation marks included)
 
That gives about 50 results today (on March 5th it was 13). Here are the top 10 (as of today):
 
    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination and
    ... www.vaccinationcouncil.org/.../the-ineffectiveness-of-measles-vaccines-a...
    Jan 18, 2013 - Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in
    1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age
    children occurred among persons who had  ... You
    visited this page on 3/4/15.
 
    Outbreaks of Measles in Vaccinated Children Intensifying
    healthimpactnews.com/.../outbreaks-of-measles-in-vaccinated-children-in...
    Jan 24, 2013 - Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in
    1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age
    children occurred among persons who had  ...
 
    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of ... - Whale
    www.whale.to/v/measles_vaccines1.html Jan 18, 2013 -
    Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986.
    152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had  ...
 
    General Discussion Forum Thead: Vaccinations on JamBase
    www.jambase.com/Forums/Thread.aspx?group=0...1...
    JamBase Feb 5, 2015 - 15 posts - ?7 authors Robertson
    et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986. 152 measles
    outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among
    persons who had  ...
 
    Measles outbreaks are being caused by the unvaccinated
    barbfeick.com/vaxrebuttals/rebuttals/Measles.html
    Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986.
    152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had previously received  ...
 
    Measles outbreaks signal increasing incidence
    comparable ... www.lcscbooks.com/measles-outbreaks-signal-increasing-incidence-com...
    Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986,
    152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had previously received  ...
 
    90% of Those Infected with Measles in New York Outbreak
    Are www.dcclothesline.com/.../90-infected-measles-new-york-outbreak-vacci...
    Apr 1, 2014 - Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in
    1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age
    children occurred among persons who had  ...
 
    Still think not vaccinating is a good idea? - CafeMom
    Mobile m.cafemom.com/groups/read_topic.php?group_id=115189...id...
    Sep 11, 2013 - Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in
    1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age
    children occurred among persons who had  ...
 
    Vaccine (Beware) - Part 3 - Lowyat.NET forum.lowyat.net
    › Roundtable Discussions › Health & Fitness 1 post - ?1
    author Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and
    1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had previously received  ...
 
    Measles in children - Medical information and advice
    book-med.info/measles/30317 Robertson et al. (1992)
    wrote that in 1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in
    US school-age children occurred among persons who had
    previously received  ...
 
As you can see, these results show people who, like Dave, are active vaccine deniers. The only item that actually looks like it might be a book or a research paper is the last one above. Yet upon further inspection you can see that it's really just one of those phony robotic aggregation sites apparently meant to generate search engine traffic.
 
Looking through every result, I could not find a single reference to actual scholarly research on vaccination, peer-reviewed or otherwise.
 
Finally, I looked for Dave's specific quotation in any context:
 
    "Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles
    irrespective of vaccination compliance"

 
(the same technique I taught my elderly father)
 
Here's the top result (from "vaccinationcouncil.org" ):
 
    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination
    and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
    http://tinyurl.com/mwn6sf8
 
First, here's the "vaccinationcouncil.org" about page:
 
    The International Medical Council on Vaccination is an
    association of medical doctors, registered nurses and
    other qualified medical professionals whose purpose is
    to counter the messages asserted by pharmaceutical
    companies, the government and medical agencies that
    vaccines are safe, effective and harmless.  Our
    conclusions have been reached individually by each
    member of the Council, after thousands of hours of
    personal research, study and observation.
 
Clearly these folks have the same agenda as Dave and the other vaccine deniers. They are therefore not a reputable source since they do not offer an unbiased point-of-view on the subject.
 
Finally, here's the original source of Dave's quotation referenced by "vaccinationcouncil.org" (not to mention the original source of Dave's source of other sources :0):
 
    Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
 
    About the author
 
    Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist
    (Retired) with a doctorate in Natural Sciences from
    Comenius University in Bratislava. After an eminent
    scientific career in micropalaeontology during which
    she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in
    refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas,
    she studied babies’ breathing patterns with the
    Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her late
    husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. ...
 
I could be wrong, but does a career in micropalaeontology (eminent or otherwise) necessarily make someone an authority on vaccine research? I don't think so.
 
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Dr. Scheibner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viera_Scheibner ):
 
    Viera Scheibner (Slovak: Viera Scheibnerová; born 27
    March 1935, Bratislava) is a retired micropaleontologist.
    From 1958 until 1968 she was assistant professor in the
    department of geology at Comenius University, Bratislava.
    Scheibner has been active in the anti-vaccination field
    researching, writing and giving lectures on the subject
    matter of vaccines and vaccinations since her retirement
    from the Department of Mineral Resources, New South
    Wales, Australia in 1987.
 
    A great number of doctors, scientists, legal
    professionals and other critics have questioned her
    qualifications, research abilities, and honesty.
 
So on the contrary, Dave's reference is not reputable at all. It actually epitomizes a disreputable source in every sense of the word.
 

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 23, 2015, 7:00:47 PM3/23/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Stacy wrote (on 3/11/2015):
 
    George, I have been working non-stop since 4am, and
    tomorrow will be the same. I will get back to this when
    I get a free moment which may be the weekend.
 
Well it's been more than 2 weekends Stacy. If you need more time, we understand. Just let us know how much more time you need.
 
If you've changed your mind (ie. you now agree that Dave's "Robertson et al. (1992)" reference is indeed disreputable), then let us know that instead. Please don't just keep us in suspense.
 
In the mean time Dave, feel free to chime in with 100 words or less about why you still think the following is a reputable source:
 
    Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986.
    152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children
    occurred among persons who had previously received
    measles vaccine. "Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge
    of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance".
 
Please be short and very specific Dave.
 

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 27, 2015, 9:05:53 AM3/27/15
to gg
The 3rd weekend is upon us Stacy. If you have finally come to realize that it was a serious mistake to trust David Leeman's judgement (ie. believing he actually evaluated his sources while also not checking them yourself), that's good. Such will be the conclusion drawn if you don't respond by Monday (3/30). It will also be a real shame if you prove incapable of admitting your mistake.
 
IMHO,  showing public agreement with the vaccine denial fringe obligates you, as an attorney with a background in biochemistry, to follow though with a public admission that you were mistaken to support Leeman's disreputable sources.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HarmonyFL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harmonyfl+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/17C09D71F9A4469693C15CCA1721DE25%40MAIN.

Stacy McCland

unread,
Mar 27, 2015, 9:58:53 AM3/27/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
And just one more comment, it is Friday. That is not a weekend for me. It is a work day.

Stacy

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Stacy McCland <stacym...@gmail.com> wrote:
George, I still believe that David Leeman's judgment is correct. I just don't have the time to do a thorough investigation as you have requested nor do I have any obligation (as you somehow seem to believe). I have been studying this subject for over 20 years, and it would take me several hours, if not days, to give you an accurate synopsis of why I have come to my conclusions. You, on the other hand, simply copy and paste information when you seem to have no personal history of actually examining the information itself at its core level. That doesn't take much time, and to me, it's not very credible. I am sure you will say the same of David Leeman, but what he is posting I have investigated, which is why I support his theories whether or not he has spent the time thoroughly investigating them.

Not only that, it has become obvious to me that this is some kind of game for you. If I get any spare time to play games, its going to be Suduko or some other challenging game that improves my brain, but certainly not this game.

And FYI, I really have no idea what "IMHO" means. 

Stacy 


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Stacy McCland, Esq.
136 Rachel Lin Lane
Saint Cloud, FL  34771
407-957-6794

Dave Leeman

unread,
Mar 28, 2015, 9:49:50 AM3/28/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Mr Schiro lists one source that he finds “not reputable” and declares victory. What about some of my other sources, such as this?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

In it we find this statement,
“Editorial Note: This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.”

So the CDC (That’s right. The Center For Disease Control) reports that vaccines don’t seem to provide the immunity claimed by the drug makers.

Is the government’s own disease monitoring organization a source “reputable” enough for Mr Schiro?










On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:18:33 PM UTC-4, Geo wrote:
> 

George Schiro

unread,
Mar 28, 2015, 11:29:55 AM3/28/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
I don't really have time for this now Dave, but I will say I agree on this
point. The CDC is a reputable source of information about vaccination. That
said, this fact is not appropriate for discussion on this thread (ie. about
disreputable sources).

With my cursory read of your suggested article, I think a more appropriate
topic for this line of discussion would be "Reputable Sources Documenting
Issues with Vaccination". I have started that thread (see "",
http://tinyurl.com/q5275tc ). Please repost your information there David.
Thank you for your cooperation with this.


-----Original Message-----
From: harm...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harm...@googlegroups.com]On
Behalf Of Dave Leeman
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 6:49 AM
To: harm...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Examples of Disreputable Sources


Mr Schiro lists one source that he finds “not reputable” and declares
victory. What about some of my other sources, such as this?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

In it we find this statement,
“Editorial Note: This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can
occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of
100%.”

So the CDC (That’s right. The Center For Disease Control) reports that
vaccines don’t seem to provide the immunity claimed by the drug makers.

Is the government’s own disease monitoring organization a source
“reputable” enough for Mr Schiro?










On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:18:33 PM UTC-4, Geo wrote:
> ?
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/fcdfdfe7-51ce-4347-b7fa-8095eb01
62de%40googlegroups.com.

George Schiro

unread,
Apr 13, 2015, 9:45:17 PM4/13/15
to gg
I apologize if this is "TLDR" (too long, didn't read). I will certainly understand if you delete it unread.
 
Also, it would be a shame for anyone to conclude that I am somehow harassing Stacy McCland in this forum. So this will be my last response on this topic, unless of course Stacy decides to chime in again. No one else is welcome on this thread.
 
On 3/11/2015 I wrote this:
 
    Since you agree that this is an important issue Stacy,
    perhaps you can continue where Dave left off. Bear in
    mind that the "Robertson" source Dave claimed as
    reputable, you also claimed as reputable.
 
    Stacy, please show us verification that the "Robertson"
    source is indeed reputable as claimed.
 
Stacy replied (on 3/11/2015):
 
    George, I have been working non-stop since 4am, and
    tomorrow will be the same. I will get back to this when
    I get a free moment which may be the weekend.
 
It's been 5 weekends since Stacy wrote the above. Clearly, she has no intention of following through. Only after I inquired as to why she was not following through did she respond (on 3/27/2015):
 
    George, I still believe that David Leeman's judgment is
    correct. I just don't have the time to do a thorough
    investigation as you have requested nor do I have any
    obligation (as you somehow seem to believe).
 
Stacy would prefer that we just accept her as an authority on vaccination and trust her judgment as to what qualifies as a credible source or not on this topic. So apparently while Stacy is not too busy to offer platitudes in this forum, she is too busy to offer credible support for her claims. But of course, as she wrote, Stacy is not obligated in any way to demonstrate her credibility on this or any other topic.
 
Stacy also wrote (on 3/27/2015):
 
    I have been studying this subject for over 20 years,
    and it would take me several hours, if not days, to
    give you an accurate synopsis of why I have come to my
    conclusions.
 
I don't believe you Stacy. I don't believe you've been studying this subject for 20 years. I also don't need a synopsis of why you have come to your conclusions (accurate or otherwise).
 
What I asked for was a single piece of evidence that David Leeman's "Robertson" source is credible, a source which you had previously claimed as credible. Instead you wrote "I will get back to this ", but you never did.

Stacy also wrote (on 3/27/2015):
 
    You, on the other hand, simply copy and paste
    information when you seem to have no personal history
    of actually examining the information itself at its
    core level. That doesn't take much time, and to me,
    it's not very credible.
 
Yes, that's how it works in a text-based online public forum like this Stacy. Either we write something original, like an essay, a poem or a research paper, or we copy and paste references to original sources from elsewhere. Hopefully the copied and pasted references are credible. So copying and pasting is no more or less credible than the sources being copied and pasted. Does that make sense Stacy?
 
Of course it doesn't take much time or effort to pretend you are smarter and more knowledgeable than other people Stacy. You don't even need copy and paste for that.
 
But since copy and paste is so easy, I challenge you to copy and paste a single reference to support Dave's "Robertson" source, as you said you would.
 
I will make it even easier for you Stacy (as if copy and paste were not easy enough). Simply copy and paste a single reference showing us how Dave's primary "source of sources" about "Robertson" is credible:
 
    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination
    and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
   
http://tinyurl.com/mwn6sf8
 
Now for Stacy's earlier posts.
 
Let's first get the most trivial point out of the way.
 
Stacy wrote:
 
    FYI, I really have no idea what "IMHO" means.
 
Considering how easy it is to look things up ( even easier than copy and paste ;0), I find that hard to believe Stacy, but OK.
 
Just like "FYI" is a common acronym on the internet meaning "for your information", "IMHO" is a common internet acronym for "in my humble opinion." And when I use "IMHO" I mean it. It is my opinion and I am expressing it with sincere humility. I never assume the stance that I know any better than anyone else and therefore people should just accept my views on faith.
 
If I offer an opinion, it is not offered based on some pretended authority, but rather, it is offered based on peer-reviewed evidence that anyone can read for themselves on the internet. All I expect is that readers will accept that my opinion is fair and reasonable if supported by credible sources. Likewise, if others offer an opinion yet refuse to support it with credible sources, I think it is fair and reasonable to conclude that such an opinion is based on nonsense.
 
Stacy wrote:
 
    Not only that, it has become obvious to me that this is
    some kind of game for you. If I get any spare time to
    play games, its going to be Suduko or some other
    challenging game that improves my brain, but certainly
    not this game.
 
This is no game Stacy. This is two adults having a serious dialog in public.
 
Stacy is quite mistaken. While it would appear that this is indeed a game to Stacy's only supporter on this topic (David Leeman - 'Mr Schiro lists one source that he finds “not reputable” and declares victory'), this is by no means a game to me. On the contrary, this is quite serious. The health of children the world over is at stake.
 
Speaking of games, I've been reading a book by Lawrence Krauss. It opens with a fitting quotation by Jacob Bronowski:
 
    Dream or nightmare, we have to live our experience as
    it is, and we have to live it awake. We live in a world
    which is penetrated through and through by science and
    which is both whole and real. We cannot turn it into a
    game simply by taking sides.
 
No, it's not a game Stacy. We are simply on different sides of a serious debate. Neither is it a game just because I openly challenge your unsubstantiated claims with verifiable evidence.
 
I have spoken to a few folks and have received private emails recently from people who basically ask me "Don't you have anything better to do?" The answer is "of course I do." But as Stacy herself has written, the subject of vaccination is too important to just let it trail off into oblivion leaving misinformation unanswered.
 
I think I am being eminently fair, just and democratic with my approach to this subject. What I have been doing with Stacy is publicly holding her to account for what she has written in support of the "vaccine denial" side of this debate. Isn't that fair?
 
When I was being condescending to Dave, Stacy quickly jumped right in a told me so in no uncertain terms. She held me to account in public for what I had written. That was fair and just. Did I get angry or evasive with Stacy? No, I stood corrected and immediately changed my tone. That's what reasonable people do.
 
All I have been doing in this forum is refuting in a case by case manner, what Stacy and Dave have been writing on the subject of vaccination. I have been holding them to account in public.
 
Naturally, being held to account in a public forum like this means something. This is one of the few open and publicly accessible forums on the planet that requires its participants to use their real names. That brings accountability to the level of a real democracy where everyone knows everyone else. That is also why few people have the courage to speak up openly here. They know they can't just rattle off some nonsense anonymously then scurry away.
 
So when Stacy writes (see "Germ Theory", http://tinyurl.com/oehogfx ):
 
    All of Dave's "ramblings" as you call them are based on
    sound, scientific studies, regardless of the url that
    quoted them. If you go back and look at the websites,
    they footnote the actual research. I have been
    researching these types of studies for close to 20
    years, so I can quickly determine whether or not they
    are legitimate.
 
And when Stacy writes (see http://tinyurl.com/qgx9k34 ):
 
    George, I still believe that David Leeman's judgment
    is correct.
 
I think Stacy is being either disingenuous or I don't know what. Dave's "ramblings" are neither sound nor based on scientific studies. The one reference I analyzed in the most detail clearly proves this point. Several other of Dave's references analyzed at the start of this topic reinforce the same.
 
This thread is now at an end. Unless Stacy can produce specific support for the "Robertson" source, we're done. Again, here's the source of that source (among several others):
 
    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination
    and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
   
http://tinyurl.com/mwn6sf8
 
If we don't hear from Stacy within 3 days this thread will be closed with the understanding that the "Robertson et al. (1992)" reference from the above source (originally provided by David Leeman, see http://tinyurl.com/lv7xocf ) is not credible in the least.
 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
This conversation is locked
You cannot reply and perform actions on locked conversations.
0 new messages