Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Flu Shots
72 views
Skip to first unread message
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 7:39:36 AM1/13/13
to
No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 7:56:47 AM1/13/13
to
popinjay999 wrote:
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 8:20:14 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 4:56 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
they tell you to do like a good little citizen.
In fact, why don't you get two of them.
wrote:
> popinjay999 wrote:
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
Go ahead and get e flu shot, ignoramus. I know you want to do what
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
they tell you to do like a good little citizen.
In fact, why don't you get two of them.
Clave
Jan 13, 2013, 8:18:10 AM1/13/13
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2d206f60-538b-42bc...@gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Isn't ignoring fun?
Jim
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 8:31:53 AM1/13/13
to
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 8:32:25 AM1/13/13
to
10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!
The verdict is out on flu shots. Many medical experts now agree it is
more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu
vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind
this verdict:
1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even
benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving
260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu
vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are only
able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that
if you come into contact with a different strain of virus you will
still get the flu.
2.) Medical journals have published thousands of articles revealing
that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems
including harmful immunological responses and a host of other
infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the
diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.
3.) Ever noticed how vaccinated children within days or few weeks
develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and bronchiolitis? The
reason is the flu virus introduced in their bodies which creates these
symptoms. It also indicates immuno-suppression i.e. lowering of the
immunity. The flu vaccines actually do not immunize but sensitize the
body against the virus.
4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu
virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a
vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you
have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a
virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the
full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and
other contagious diseases.
5.) The Flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be
hazardous for human health. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-
dose flu shot is much higher than the maximum allowable daily exposure
limit. Mercury toxicity can cause memory loss, depression, ADD, oral
health problems, digestive imbalances, respiratory problems,
cardiovascular diseases and many more such serious health ailments.
And what about the elderly? Can the flu vaccine help them?
6.) There is mounting evidence that flu shots can cause Alzheimer’s
disease. One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine
each year for 3 to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing
Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots. Also
with age the immune system weakens, thus lowering your ability to
fight off infections. Introducing the flu virus in the bodies of
elderly could have dangerous consequences.
Can we trust the authorities who are promoting the wide-spread use of
flu vaccines?
7.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is
responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year. Almost
all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations. It’s all
about the money and may have very little to do with your health and
well being. The very people pushing these vaccines stand to make
billions of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective
these flu vaccines really are?
8.) Research shows that over-use of the flu-vaccine and drugs like
Tamiflu and Relenza can actually alter flu viruses and cause them to
mutate into a more deadly strain. Couple this with drug resistant
strains and you have virtually no benefits with much risk.
9.) There is enough evidence that shows that the ingredients present
in the flu vaccinations can actually cause serious neurological
disorders. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak, many who got the flu shots
developed permanent nerve damage. Flu vaccines can contain many
harmful materials including detergent, mercury, formaldehyde, and
strains of live flu virus. Is this what you want to put in YOUR body?
10.) Trying to guess what strain to vaccinate against each season has
proved to be no more effective than a guessing game. This has been
very true in recent years with the H1N1 strain. Moreover getting multi-
shots will only prove more dangerous as different strains of viruses
and harmful ingredients are introduced into your body.
Flu shots are indeed more dangerous than you could think, and it is
best to rely on natural ways to protect against the flu rather than
getting yourself vaccinated.
Isn’t it interesting that the main stream public health officials
never promote the various proven ways to avoid the flu other than
through
vaccination? How about spending some of the billions of advertising
dollars teaching us natural ways to boost our immune systems and avoid
the flu without harmful and sometimes deadly vaccinations.
http://www.bewellbuzz.com/general/10-reasons-flu-shots-dangerous-flu/
The verdict is out on flu shots. Many medical experts now agree it is
more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu
vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind
this verdict:
1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even
benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving
260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu
vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are only
able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that
if you come into contact with a different strain of virus you will
still get the flu.
2.) Medical journals have published thousands of articles revealing
that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems
including harmful immunological responses and a host of other
infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the
diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.
3.) Ever noticed how vaccinated children within days or few weeks
develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and bronchiolitis? The
reason is the flu virus introduced in their bodies which creates these
symptoms. It also indicates immuno-suppression i.e. lowering of the
immunity. The flu vaccines actually do not immunize but sensitize the
body against the virus.
4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu
virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a
vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you
have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a
virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the
full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and
other contagious diseases.
5.) The Flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be
hazardous for human health. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-
dose flu shot is much higher than the maximum allowable daily exposure
limit. Mercury toxicity can cause memory loss, depression, ADD, oral
health problems, digestive imbalances, respiratory problems,
cardiovascular diseases and many more such serious health ailments.
And what about the elderly? Can the flu vaccine help them?
6.) There is mounting evidence that flu shots can cause Alzheimer’s
disease. One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine
each year for 3 to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing
Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots. Also
with age the immune system weakens, thus lowering your ability to
fight off infections. Introducing the flu virus in the bodies of
elderly could have dangerous consequences.
Can we trust the authorities who are promoting the wide-spread use of
flu vaccines?
7.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is
responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year. Almost
all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations. It’s all
about the money and may have very little to do with your health and
well being. The very people pushing these vaccines stand to make
billions of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective
these flu vaccines really are?
8.) Research shows that over-use of the flu-vaccine and drugs like
Tamiflu and Relenza can actually alter flu viruses and cause them to
mutate into a more deadly strain. Couple this with drug resistant
strains and you have virtually no benefits with much risk.
9.) There is enough evidence that shows that the ingredients present
in the flu vaccinations can actually cause serious neurological
disorders. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak, many who got the flu shots
developed permanent nerve damage. Flu vaccines can contain many
harmful materials including detergent, mercury, formaldehyde, and
strains of live flu virus. Is this what you want to put in YOUR body?
10.) Trying to guess what strain to vaccinate against each season has
proved to be no more effective than a guessing game. This has been
very true in recent years with the H1N1 strain. Moreover getting multi-
shots will only prove more dangerous as different strains of viruses
and harmful ingredients are introduced into your body.
Flu shots are indeed more dangerous than you could think, and it is
best to rely on natural ways to protect against the flu rather than
getting yourself vaccinated.
Isn’t it interesting that the main stream public health officials
never promote the various proven ways to avoid the flu other than
through
vaccination? How about spending some of the billions of advertising
dollars teaching us natural ways to boost our immune systems and avoid
the flu without harmful and sometimes deadly vaccinations.
http://www.bewellbuzz.com/general/10-reasons-flu-shots-dangerous-flu/
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 8:38:35 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 5:31 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
would think you are MUCH younger.
But go ahead and get your little mercury shots. Have your girlfriend
get one too. Go ahead, ignore the warnings. Disregard any natural
and safe ways to prevent flu. Take their shots, take whatever they
say is good for you. Good little citizen. March, bitch!
wrote:
>
> I'm not an old fart like you, Peepee
No, you're about 10 years younger than I am, even though most people
would think you are MUCH younger.
But go ahead and get your little mercury shots. Have your girlfriend
get one too. Go ahead, ignore the warnings. Disregard any natural
and safe ways to prevent flu. Take their shots, take whatever they
say is good for you. Good little citizen. March, bitch!
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:06:21 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 6:39 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
I don't do shots of any kind. Just because. Last shot I took was at
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
least 25 years ago.
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:06:48 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 6:56 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
in the can?
wrote:
> popinjay999 wrote:
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
What is the chemical reaction that causes food to become more acidic
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
in the can?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:18:16 AM1/13/13
to
popinjay999 wrote:
> On Jan 13, 5:31 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not an old fart like you, Peepee
>
>
> No, you're about 10 years younger than I am, even though most people
> would think you are MUCH younger.
Oh bullshit, you're about as old as Willie
> On Jan 13, 5:31 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not an old fart like you, Peepee
>
>
> No, you're about 10 years younger than I am, even though most people
> would think you are MUCH younger.
>
> But go ahead and get your little mercury shots. Have your girlfriend
> get one too. Go ahead, ignore the warnings. Disregard any natural
> and safe ways to prevent flu. Take their shots, take whatever they
> say is good for you. Good little citizen. March, bitch!
Fucknut, I am not an old fart.
> But go ahead and get your little mercury shots. Have your girlfriend
> get one too. Go ahead, ignore the warnings. Disregard any natural
> and safe ways to prevent flu. Take their shots, take whatever they
> say is good for you. Good little citizen. March, bitch!
I don't need one.
SHE has issues that the flu would really complicate, so she does
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:20:42 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:25:05 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
Now, what chemical reactions causes food in a can to become more
acidic?
Were you full of shit when you said this;
Beldin quote 1 "acid content may render it unsafe.
Beldin quote 2" anything with acid inside (tomatoes being an easy
example) have
shorter codes because the acid content rises over time
That ALWAYS happens, if left on the shelf long enough"
Beldin quote 3 "The acid concentration gets higher over time, though,
you fucking moron, and
eventually becomes dangerous "
Beldin quote 4" And the acid content goes up over time"
Beldin quote 5 "Go do shots of sulphuric acid, and get back to us "
So, dumbfuck, explain the chemical reaction that takes place in a can
of food that causes the acid content to go up over time? Why are you
dodging the question, you were quite emphatic about saying it several
times. Is it because you were full of shit, just like you were about
everything else?
Now, what chemical reactions causes food in a can to become more
acidic?
Were you full of shit when you said this;
Beldin quote 1 "acid content may render it unsafe.
Beldin quote 2" anything with acid inside (tomatoes being an easy
example) have
shorter codes because the acid content rises over time
That ALWAYS happens, if left on the shelf long enough"
Beldin quote 3 "The acid concentration gets higher over time, though,
you fucking moron, and
eventually becomes dangerous "
Beldin quote 4" And the acid content goes up over time"
Beldin quote 5 "Go do shots of sulphuric acid, and get back to us "
So, dumbfuck, explain the chemical reaction that takes place in a can
of food that causes the acid content to go up over time? Why are you
dodging the question, you were quite emphatic about saying it several
times. Is it because you were full of shit, just like you were about
everything else?
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:27:56 AM1/13/13
to
the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
there is no bacteria.
So, dumbass, what causes canned food to become more acidic?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:33:30 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 6:56 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> popinjay999 wrote:
>>>>> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>>
>>>> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
>>
>>> What is the chemical reaction that causes food to become more acidic
>>> in the can?
>>
>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>
> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
So you mean acid can get produced without a chemical reaction?
> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 6:56 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> popinjay999 wrote:
>>>>> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>>
>>>> Of course not. You die. Will will plan the party
>>
>>> What is the chemical reaction that causes food to become more acidic
>>> in the can?
>>
>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>
> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
Amazing!
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:38:25 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 8:33 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
LOL Uh, no dumbass, it can't A chemical reaction takes place as the
bacteria digests..
And again, dumbass, there is no bacteria in a canned good. There is
no chemical reaction. Canned foods do NOT become more acidic over
time.
You just keep diggin the hole deeper, in true Beldin fashion.
bacteria digests..
And again, dumbass, there is no bacteria in a canned good. There is
no chemical reaction. Canned foods do NOT become more acidic over
time.
You just keep diggin the hole deeper, in true Beldin fashion.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:41:32 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>
> On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>
> I should correct something. Bacteria give off lactic acid that causes
> the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
> environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
> there is no bacteria.
That'd be false.
> the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
> environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
> there is no bacteria.
Evaporated milk (canned) will go sour.
Your brain beginning to catch on yet?
>
>
> So, dumbass, what causes canned food to become more acidic?
Not "all canned food"
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:46:00 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
>>
>>>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>>
>>> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
>>
>> So you mean acid can get produced without a chemical reaction?
>> Amazing!
>>
>>>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>>
>>> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
>>
>> So you mean acid can get produced without a chemical reaction?
>> Amazing!
> LOL Uh, no dumbass, it can't A chemical reaction takes place as the
> bacteria digests..
So, were you lying when you said it WASN'T a chemical reaction or when you
> bacteria digests..
said it WAS?
Which is it, shithead?
>
>
> And again, dumbass, there is no bacteria in a canned good.
Actually, in your case, stupidity.
Yes, you fucking moron, there is some bacteria in canned milk.
YES, you fucking shit for brains, it goes sour over time.
It is greatly reduced over, say, regular pasturizsed milk (which is greatly
reduced over UNpasturized milk) but it still exists'
How fucking big a retard are you?
Why are tomatoes acidic, asshat?
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:50:22 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 8:41 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
It may deteriorate in other ways.
>
>
> > So, dumbass, what causes canned food to become more acidic?
>
> The statement was made about tomatoes, you idiot.
> Not "all canned food"
So, tell me, moron, how does a can of tomatoes, that is sterile at
the time of canning, become more acidic? I belive you stated it could
be like doing shots of sulfuric acid BAHAHAHAHA!!!
wrote:
> Alim Nassor wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>
> > I should correct something. Bacteria give off lactic acid that causes
> > the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
> > environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
> > there is no bacteria.
>
> That'd be false.
> Evaporated milk (canned) will go sour.
> Your brain beginning to catch on yet?
It won't go sour, there are no bacteria in it to creat lactic acid.
> > On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>
> > I should correct something. Bacteria give off lactic acid that causes
> > the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
> > environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
> > there is no bacteria.
>
> That'd be false.
> Evaporated milk (canned) will go sour.
> Your brain beginning to catch on yet?
It may deteriorate in other ways.
>
>
> > So, dumbass, what causes canned food to become more acidic?
>
> The statement was made about tomatoes, you idiot.
> Not "all canned food"
the time of canning, become more acidic? I belive you stated it could
be like doing shots of sulfuric acid BAHAHAHAHA!!!
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 9:57:43 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:41 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>>
>>> I should correct something. Bacteria give off lactic acid that
>>> causes the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
>>> environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
>>> there is no bacteria.
>>
>> That'd be false.
>> Evaporated milk (canned) will go sour.
>> Your brain beginning to catch on yet?
>
> It won't go sour, there are no bacteria in it to creat lactic acid.
> It may deteriorate in other ways.
>
No, shithead, it will go sour.
> On Jan 13, 8:41 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 8:25 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 8:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
>>
>>> I should correct something. Bacteria give off lactic acid that
>>> causes the milk to sour. However, milk is not packaged in a steril
>>> environment like that that exists in a canned food. In a canned food
>>> there is no bacteria.
>>
>> That'd be false.
>> Evaporated milk (canned) will go sour.
>> Your brain beginning to catch on yet?
>
> It won't go sour, there are no bacteria in it to creat lactic acid.
> It may deteriorate in other ways.
>
You don't believe me, ask Carnation foods
>>
>>
>>> So, dumbass, what causes canned food to become more acidic?
>>
>> The statement was made about tomatoes, you idiot.
>> Not "all canned food"
>
> So, tell me, moron, how does a can of tomatoes, that is sterile at
> the time of canning, become more acidic? I belive you stated it could
> be like doing shots of sulfuric acid BAHAHAHAHA!!!
Alim Nassor
Jan 13, 2013, 9:58:19 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 8:46 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
The contents of canned goods are sterile you fucking moron.
\Especially tomatoes since they have a high acid content to begin with
and acidity is one factor in acheiving a prpoer canned food result.
The question now, and as always is,
How the fuck does a can of tomatoes become more acidic agfter it's
canned? Especially since you claimed it could be like taking shots of
sulfuric acid?
wrote:
\Especially tomatoes since they have a high acid content to begin with
and acidity is one factor in acheiving a prpoer canned food result.
The question now, and as always is,
How the fuck does a can of tomatoes become more acidic agfter it's
canned? Especially since you claimed it could be like taking shots of
sulfuric acid?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 13, 2013, 10:04:27 AM1/13/13
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:46 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>>
>>>>> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
>>
>>>> So you mean acid can get produced without a chemical reaction?
>>>> Amazing!
>>> LOL Uh, no dumbass, it can't A chemical reaction takes place as the
>>> bacteria digests..
>>
>> So, were you lying when you said it WASN'T a chemical reaction or
>> when you said it WAS?
>>
>> Which is it, shithead?
>>
>>
>>
>>> And again, dumbass, there is no bacteria in a canned good.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> Actually, in your case, stupidity.
>>
>> Yes, you fucking moron, there is some bacteria in canned milk.
>> YES, you fucking shit for brains, it goes sour over time.
>>
>> It is greatly reduced over, say, regular pasturizsed milk (which is
>> greatly reduced over UNpasturized milk) but it still exists'
>>
>> How fucking big a retard are you?
>>
>> Why are tomatoes acidic, asshat?
>
> The contents of canned goods are sterile you fucking moron.
The cans are sterilized.
> On Jan 13, 8:46 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Alim Nassor wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What chemical reaction causes milk to sour?
>>
>>>>> None, you dumnass. Bacteria causes milk to sour,
>>
>>>> So you mean acid can get produced without a chemical reaction?
>>>> Amazing!
>>> LOL Uh, no dumbass, it can't A chemical reaction takes place as the
>>> bacteria digests..
>>
>> So, were you lying when you said it WASN'T a chemical reaction or
>> when you said it WAS?
>>
>> Which is it, shithead?
>>
>>
>>
>>> And again, dumbass, there is no bacteria in a canned good.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> Actually, in your case, stupidity.
>>
>> Yes, you fucking moron, there is some bacteria in canned milk.
>> YES, you fucking shit for brains, it goes sour over time.
>>
>> It is greatly reduced over, say, regular pasturizsed milk (which is
>> greatly reduced over UNpasturized milk) but it still exists'
>>
>> How fucking big a retard are you?
>>
>> Why are tomatoes acidic, asshat?
>
> The contents of canned goods are sterile you fucking moron.
The plastic containers holding yogurt are sterile too, you idiot
No wonder you're a fucking moron.
You don't know that food can't be perfectly preserved
Alim Nassor 1
Jan 13, 2013, 10:19:43 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 9:04 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
The contents are sterilized during the canning process you idiot.
risky biz
Jan 13, 2013, 11:23:03 AM1/13/13
to
Don't assume that you couldn't be one of them.
I once worked in close contact with dozens of people and there is always a
percentage who insist on bringing their illness to work and giving it to
others rather than use their sick leave. I've had flu several times and
twice it was really bad. I can fully understand how it could kill a weaker
person.
Alim Nassor 1
Jan 13, 2013, 11:42:31 AM1/13/13
to
livem they offerred up a whole shitload of shots. I declined. It's
not a fear olf needles cause I've given gallons of blood. I just have
never seen the need. I rarely get sick, have no health issues at all.
O-PGManager
Jan 13, 2013, 1:44:25 PM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13 2013 8:32 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> 10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!
I think this is a good discussion, but this source has some serious
> 10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!
problems Paul. This is a pretty shocking claim it makes that caught my
eye:
"One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3
to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer�s disease
than people who did not have any flu shots."
it appears to be a totally debunked theory put forward by a doctor who had
his license revoked:
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q.a/11/07/flu.shot.alzheimers.shu/index.html
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 1:58:25 PM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 8:23 am, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Estimate how many people would die each year if no one had flu shots.
> Don't assume that you couldn't be one of them.
>
> I once worked in close contact with dozens of people and there is always a
> percentage who insist on bringing their illness to work and giving it to
> others rather than use their sick leave. I've had flu several times and
> twice it was really bad. I can fully understand how it could kill a weaker
> person.
First of all, I eat a ton of raw garlic. No risk there.
>
> Estimate how many people would die each year if no one had flu shots.
> Don't assume that you couldn't be one of them.
>
> I once worked in close contact with dozens of people and there is always a
> percentage who insist on bringing their illness to work and giving it to
> others rather than use their sick leave. I've had flu several times and
> twice it was really bad. I can fully understand how it could kill a weaker
> person.
Second, chlorine dioxide. Ask Joe Turn.
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 2:19:43 PM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 10:58 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> First of all, I eat a ton of raw garlic. No risk there.
>
> Second, chlorine dioxide. Ask Joe Turn.
By the way, I eat 5 to 6 cloves of garlic EACH day. Morning, and
>
> First of all, I eat a ton of raw garlic. No risk there.
>
> Second, chlorine dioxide. Ask Joe Turn.
night.
As to chlorine dioxide, look it up. You will find many hits that will
tell you "MMS" will kill you, and many hits that will tell you the
good it does. I personally have been using it rarely, for five
years. But it takes some preparation.
popinjay999
Jan 13, 2013, 2:21:04 PM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 11:19 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> As to chlorine dioxide, look it up. You will find many hits that will
> tell you "MMS" will kill you, and many hits that will tell you the
> good it does. I personally have been using it rarely, for five
> years. But it takes some preparation.
By the way, I think Canada banned it.
>
> As to chlorine dioxide, look it up. You will find many hits that will
> tell you "MMS" will kill you, and many hits that will tell you the
> good it does. I personally have been using it rarely, for five
> years. But it takes some preparation.
ChrisRobin
Jan 14, 2013, 12:19:34 AM1/14/13
to
On Jan 13 2013 7:39 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
Me neither. The efficacy of vaccinations is just another big lie:
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
"As reported by the group Health Freedom Alliance, children who have been
vaccinated according to official government schedules are up to five times
more likely to contract a preventable disease than children who developed
their own immune systems naturally without vaccines."
..
�'No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has
ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years
or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations'"...
http://consciouslifenews.com/vaccinated-children-five-times-prone-disease-unvaccinated-children/1147287/
Just last week Natural News published a story claiming that while the CDC
says the flu vaccine has about a 60% effectiveness rate, in reality its
true effectiveness is around 1.5%. No thanks!
Pepe Papon
Jan 14, 2013, 1:36:20 AM1/14/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:32:25 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu
>virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a
>vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you
>have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a
>virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the
>full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and
>other contagious diseases.
This is nonsense. The flu shot contains killedf virus. You can't get
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu
>virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a
>vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you
>have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a
>virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the
>full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and
>other contagious diseases.
the flu from the flu shot.
The nasal mist, OTOH, contains live, weakened virus. You can get the
flu from the mist if your immune system is suppressed, which is why
it's recommended only for healthy people ages 2-49.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm
--
Pepe "Far Superior to Pickle" Papon
BillB
Jan 14, 2013, 1:48:43 AM1/14/13
to
On 13/01/2013 9:19 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> http://consciouslifenews.com/vaccinated-children-five-times-prone-disease-unvaccinated-children/1147287/
"It is our pledge to offer viewers a broad range of subjects including
spiritual development, consciousness & soul evolution, metaphysics,
health, the environment, paranormal, politics, new science and
technology, with the goal of assisting each individual with all the
tools they need to live fully, consciously and responsibly."
lol
> http://consciouslifenews.com/vaccinated-children-five-times-prone-disease-unvaccinated-children/1147287/
"It is our pledge to offer viewers a broad range of subjects including
spiritual development, consciousness & soul evolution, metaphysics,
health, the environment, paranormal, politics, new science and
technology, with the goal of assisting each individual with all the
tools they need to live fully, consciously and responsibly."
lol
Pepe Papon
Jan 14, 2013, 1:48:52 AM1/14/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:19:43 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>As to chlorine dioxide, look it up. You will find many hits that will
>tell you "MMS" will kill you, and many hits that will tell you the
>good it does. I personally have been using it rarely, for five
>years. But it takes some preparation.
This sounds like a very bad idea. It's an oxidizing agent. People
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>As to chlorine dioxide, look it up. You will find many hits that will
>tell you "MMS" will kill you, and many hits that will tell you the
>good it does. I personally have been using it rarely, for five
>years. But it takes some preparation.
should be taking *anti*-oxidants.
"Experts say a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can help you ward
off infections like colds and flu. That�s because these super foods
contain immune-boosting antioxidants.
What are antioxidants? They are vitamins, minerals, and other
nutrients that protect and repair cells from damage caused by free
radicals. Many experts believe this damage plays a part in a number of
chronic diseases, including hardening of the arteries
(atherosclerosis), cancer, and arthritis. Free radicals can also
interfere with your immune system. So, fighting off damage with
antioxidants helps keep your immune system strong, making you better
able to ward off colds, flu, and other infections."
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/antioxidants-your-immune-system-super-foods-optimal-health
BillB
Jan 14, 2013, 1:51:09 AM1/14/13
to
datty oh
Jan 14, 2013, 5:17:39 AM1/14/13
to
> No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
I started getting them about 15 years ago. I can't remember what it's like
to have a sore throat. How much are sucrets going for these days?
ChrisRobin
Jan 14, 2013, 11:52:42 AM1/14/13
to
patiently for you to refute the findings of the Germany study.
BillB
Jan 14, 2013, 12:10:53 PM1/14/13
to
On 14/01/2013 8:52 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> CLN didn't do the research, moron, they only reported on it.
lol....of course they did the research. They scoured the world to find
> CLN didn't do the research, moron, they only reported on it.
one study that would at least tangentially support the preconceived
notions of anti-science loons like you (while diligently ignoring all
the rest), so they could sell it to you in the form of a page view. What
a chump.
I'll wait
> patiently for you to refute the findings of the Germany study.
on the web. I get my information from credible sources in the first
place. You should try it.
By the way, your second claim was even more laughable. 1.5% effective. LOL!
ChrisRobin
Jan 14, 2013, 12:19:54 PM1/14/13
to
O-PGManager
Jan 15, 2013, 12:45:05 AM1/15/13
to
On Jan 14 2013 12:19 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Jan 13 2013 7:39 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Me neither. The efficacy of vaccinations is just another big lie:
All of them Chris? The volume of the child vaccination schedule, driven
> On Jan 13 2013 7:39 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > No fucking way. Never had one, and ain't gonna either.
>
> Me neither. The efficacy of vaccinations is just another big lie:
by money, does appear to have gotten completely out of hand - but is that
a reason to dismiss the entire concept of vaccination altogether? The
polio vaccine was an unmitigated success was it not?
>
> "As reported by the group Health Freedom Alliance, children who have been
> vaccinated according to official government schedules are up to five times
> more likely to contract a preventable disease than children who developed
> their own immune systems naturally without vaccines."
>
>
> �'No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has
> ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years
> or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations'"...
>
>
http://consciouslifenews.com/vaccinated-children-five-times-prone-disease-unvaccinated-children/1147287/
>
> Just last week Natural News published a story claiming that while the CDC
> says the flu vaccine has about a 60% effectiveness rate, in reality its
> true effectiveness is around 1.5%. No thanks!
> �'No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has
> ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years
> or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations'"...
>
>
http://consciouslifenews.com/vaccinated-children-five-times-prone-disease-unvaccinated-children/1147287/
>
> Just last week Natural News published a story claiming that while the CDC
> says the flu vaccine has about a 60% effectiveness rate, in reality its
> true effectiveness is around 1.5%. No thanks!
ChrisRobin
Jan 15, 2013, 12:23:34 PM1/15/13
to
On Jan 15 2013 12:45 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> All of them Chris? The volume of the child vaccination schedule, driven
> by money, does appear to have gotten completely out of hand - but is that
> a reason to dismiss the entire concept of vaccination altogether? The
> polio vaccine was an unmitigated success was it not?
No, I don't believe the entire idea should be dismissed, but the dangers
> All of them Chris? The volume of the child vaccination schedule, driven
> by money, does appear to have gotten completely out of hand - but is that
> a reason to dismiss the entire concept of vaccination altogether? The
> polio vaccine was an unmitigated success was it not?
inherent in vaccination are real enough that they should be approached
very cautiously, and their historical effectiveness has been wildly
overstated. Certainly the current child vaccination schedule, as you
suggest, is way out of hand.
As for polio, the creator of the vaccine � Dr. Jonas Salk � testified
before Congress in 1977 that the polio vaccine was actually the CAUSE of
most polio cases since 1961. So no, I would hardly call it an "unmitigated
success."
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 1:29:28 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 9:23 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
was it not?
>
> No, I don't believe the entire idea should be dismissed, but the dangers
> inherent in vaccination are real enough that they should be approached
> very cautiously, and their historical effectiveness has been wildly
> overstated. Certainly the current child vaccination schedule, as you
> suggest, is way out of hand.
LOL..Dr. Chrissy got his medical degree from Rolling Stone magazine.
was it not?
>
> No, I don't believe the entire idea should be dismissed, but the dangers
> inherent in vaccination are real enough that they should be approached
> very cautiously, and their historical effectiveness has been wildly
> overstated. Certainly the current child vaccination schedule, as you
> suggest, is way out of hand.
That's why he speaks with such profound authority.
Not to mention he used to sell ads on bus shelters! This guy really
knows his shit!
Tim Norfolk
Jan 15, 2013, 1:43:30 PM1/15/13
to
Mossingen
Jan 15, 2013, 3:15:59 PM1/15/13
to
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:64hcs9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
I agree with this. The way it was explained to me was that there are so
many strains of flu, the chances of you getting inoculated against the exact
one into which you come into contact is remote. Basically, they are a
crapshoot with long odds on helping.
news:64hcs9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
many strains of flu, the chances of you getting inoculated against the exact
one into which you come into contact is remote. Basically, they are a
crapshoot with long odds on helping.
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 3:43:40 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 12:15 PM, Mossingen wrote
> I agree with this. The way it was explained to me was that there are so
> many strains of flu, the chances of you getting inoculated against the exact
> one into which you come into contact is remote. Basically, they are a
> crapshoot with long odds on helping.
Complete nonsense. In fact, some recent studies have been trying to
figure out why the vaccine is as effective as it is even when scientists
fail to match the strains very well for that season.
Almost all scientific studies show the flu vaccine to be between 50-80%
effective, and results that good are not subject to misinterpretation or
mistake. It's not that hard to measure this stuff. All they are
basically doing is measuring the infection rate of a statistically
significant sample of people who were, and were not, inoculated. It's
not a difficult experiment to try to replicate.
> I agree with this. The way it was explained to me was that there are so
> many strains of flu, the chances of you getting inoculated against the exact
> one into which you come into contact is remote. Basically, they are a
> crapshoot with long odds on helping.
figure out why the vaccine is as effective as it is even when scientists
fail to match the strains very well for that season.
Almost all scientific studies show the flu vaccine to be between 50-80%
effective, and results that good are not subject to misinterpretation or
mistake. It's not that hard to measure this stuff. All they are
basically doing is measuring the infection rate of a statistically
significant sample of people who were, and were not, inoculated. It's
not a difficult experiment to try to replicate.
RedKnave
Jan 15, 2013, 4:13:15 PM1/15/13
to
reading this:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm
Clave
Jan 15, 2013, 4:21:14 PM1/15/13
to
"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kd4dr2$9m9$1...@dont-email.me...
> "ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
<...>
>> Just last week Natural News published a story claiming that while the CDC
>> says the flu vaccine has about a 60% effectiveness rate, in reality its
>> true effectiveness is around 1.5%. No thanks!
>
> I agree with this. The way it was explained to me was that there are so
> many strains of flu, the chances of you getting inoculated against the
> exact one into which you come into contact is remote. Basically, they are
> a crapshoot with long odds on helping.
by self-proclaimed "health ranger" Mike "HealthDanger" Adams. The site
promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes
in vaccine hysteria and quack cancer medicine.[1][2] The site also
promotes conspiracy theories about modern medicine, geared to gain
sympathy for alternative medicine.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 4:37:59 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 1:21 PM, Clave wrote:
> NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded and owned
> by self-proclaimed "health ranger" Mike "HealthDanger" Adams. The site
> promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes
> in vaccine hysteria and quack cancer medicine.[1][2] The site also
> promotes conspiracy theories about modern medicine, geared to gain
> sympathy for alternative medicine.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
Or as chrissy calls them, "serious researchers." lol
> NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded and owned
> by self-proclaimed "health ranger" Mike "HealthDanger" Adams. The site
> promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes
> in vaccine hysteria and quack cancer medicine.[1][2] The site also
> promotes conspiracy theories about modern medicine, geared to gain
> sympathy for alternative medicine.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 4:41:04 PM1/15/13
to
study" turned out to be a survey by an anti-vaccine website. What a chump.
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 4:45:49 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 1:41 PM, BillB wrote:
> By the way, as far as I can tell, his all-important sounding "German
> study" turned out to be a survey by an anti-vaccine website. What a chump.
Also, when I followed their invitation to click a link to see their
> By the way, as far as I can tell, his all-important sounding "German
> study" turned out to be a survey by an anti-vaccine website. What a chump.
bogus data, AVG intercepted a virus. Can you imagine "serious
researchers" like that trying to infect my computer? What is this world
coming to? Beware.
Travel A
Jan 15, 2013, 4:51:22 PM1/15/13
to
Do a study on how many of those who "don't believe in flu shots" are
afraid of needles.
Then, among the ones who aren't afraid of needles, do a study of those
who hate going to the doctor (or waiting in lines in general) and/or are
inclined to abnormal suspicions of modern medicine (a "conspiracy
theorist" syndrome," etc.), Usenet trolls and those with zero insurance
to pay for a flu shot, and that'll cover just about all of them.
In other words, Chrissy Shitbird's a conspiracy kook, Hankins is afraid
of needles and a certain, Popinjay, is a Usenet troll.
afraid of needles.
Then, among the ones who aren't afraid of needles, do a study of those
who hate going to the doctor (or waiting in lines in general) and/or are
inclined to abnormal suspicions of modern medicine (a "conspiracy
theorist" syndrome," etc.), Usenet trolls and those with zero insurance
to pay for a flu shot, and that'll cover just about all of them.
In other words, Chrissy Shitbird's a conspiracy kook, Hankins is afraid
of needles and a certain, Popinjay, is a Usenet troll.
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 5:02:46 PM1/15/13
to
one I barely even feel it. That's the main reason I don't get the
vaccine, so you nailed me.
I came pretty close to dying of flu complications once. I wasn't given
last rites or anything, but if I got 10% sicker I would have been toast.
It was probably the worst few days of my life. They put me in a cold
bath in the hospital because my temperature was getting critical. No fun
at all. You'd think I would have learned my lesson.
fffurken
Jan 15, 2013, 5:06:26 PM1/15/13
to
Adam Russell
Jan 15, 2013, 5:24:27 PM1/15/13
to
fffurken
Jan 15, 2013, 5:25:33 PM1/15/13
to
I'm not exactly a fan of needles either and I'm ashamed to admit it,
but I've never given blood. But a that's a semi-invasive procedure, a
flu vaccine is just a jab. I'm pretty sure I got one in work years ago
just because there was someone there to do it.
fffurken
Jan 15, 2013, 5:27:38 PM1/15/13
to
On Jan 15, 10:24 pm, Adam Russell <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Im just afraid of my credit card.
Yeah, you can add that to my list too.
wrote:
> Im just afraid of my credit card.
ChrisRobin
Jan 15, 2013, 5:26:14 PM1/15/13
to
On Jan 15 2013 4:41 PM, BillB wrote:
> By the way, as far as I can tell, his all-important sounding "German
> study" turned out to be a survey by an anti-vaccine website. What a chump.
"As far as you can tell?" That's some serious research, Bill. Well done.
> By the way, as far as I can tell, his all-important sounding "German
> study" turned out to be a survey by an anti-vaccine website. What a chump.
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 5:34:46 PM1/15/13
to
virus on my computer.
ChrisRobin
Jan 15, 2013, 5:35:25 PM1/15/13
to
such a product exist, but chances are you'd faint at the sight of the
needle.
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 5:51:26 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 2:35 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> I'd suggest that you might benefit from vaccination for stupidity
Haha ...the moron who thinks Dick Cheney attacked the US on 9/11 thinks
> I'd suggest that you might benefit from vaccination for stupidity
I'm stupid. Oh no!!!
ChrisRobin
Jan 15, 2013, 6:39:02 PM1/15/13
to
epidemiologist and leading influenza expert Dr. Tom Jefferson, from TIME
magazine:
"Jefferson and colleagues have published several systematic reviews of
existing studies on the efficacy of influenza vaccines. Weighing the data,
they conclude that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that flu
vaccines reduce infection rates or mortality, even in the elderly."
..
Jefferson: "'In a separate study we looked at the science that
policymakers use, and it's disturbing how large the gap is between policy
and evidence. We looked at the World Health Organization, CDC and U.K.,
Australian and German authorities � they have what it is called a
'citation bias.' They cite some studies that support vaccines, but other
studies that find no effect are left out. Most importantly, there is no
critical appraisal of the methods.' [Cochrane reviewers examine the
methodology of all studies they include in their systematic reviews.]"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967306,00.html
Jefferson went on to publish one of his studies in the British Medical
Journal. His key findings:
�Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines
have little or no effect on the effects measured
�Most studies are of poor methodological quality
�Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines
http://www.acpcampania.it/allegati/laboratori/Tom_Jefferson_vacc_influenza.pdf
From the Cochran Collaboration, which parsed old influenza infection data
and reviewed 15 of the 36 influenza trials funded by the pharmaceutical
industry:
"Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated
people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials
showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching
circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated
to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially
matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of
influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people
hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barr�
syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every
one million vaccinations."
That's roughly a 3.3% effectiveness rate for "ideal conditions" � that is,
when the vaccine strain is a perfect match for the circulating viral
configuration � and a 1% effectiveness rate for "average conditions" (when
it isn't).
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/876/9/
BillB
Jan 15, 2013, 11:16:20 PM1/15/13
to
On 15/01/2013 3:39 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> Perhaps you'll prefer these sources. First, an interview with
> epidemiologist and leading influenza expert Dr. Tom Jefferson, from TIME
> magazine:
That's at least a half-step up for sure. I mean, at least this time
> Perhaps you'll prefer these sources. First, an interview with
> epidemiologist and leading influenza expert Dr. Tom Jefferson, from TIME
> magazine:
you're actually quoting a bona fide scientist! It's good to see my
critical thinking lessons are finally sinking in, a bit.
Just a couple of questions....how did you decide this guy is "a leading
influenza expert," and what percentage of epidemiologists accept this
"leading influenza expert's" conclusions? If it's less than a
preponderance (which, of course, it is) why do you choose to believe him
over the vast majority of other "leading experts"?
O-PGManager
Jan 16, 2013, 12:28:25 AM1/16/13
to
to see your study showing the efficacy of the flu vaccine... or just stick
with endless ad hominems.
BillB
Jan 16, 2013, 12:48:24 AM1/16/13
to
On 15/01/2013 9:28 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> I'm very interested in this debate. Chris posted his study - now I'd like
> to see your study showing the efficacy of the flu vaccine
You *really* need me to do that for you?
> I'm very interested in this debate. Chris posted his study - now I'd like
> to see your study showing the efficacy of the flu vaccine
A 2011 meta-study published in the journal The Lancet, "Efficacy and
Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines," analyzed 31 prior studies on the
effectiveness of influenza vaccination trials conducted between 1967 and
2011. The analysis found that flu shots were efficacious 67 percent of
the time; the populations that benefited the most were HIV-positive
adults ages 18 to 55 (76 percent), healthy adults ages 18 to 46
(approximately 70 percent) and healthy children ages 6 to 24 months (66
percent).[53]
BillB
Jan 16, 2013, 12:53:41 AM1/16/13
to
On 15/01/2013 9:48 PM, BillB wrote:
> You *really* need me to do that for you?
By the way, if I scour the web and find a scientist in Bhutan who
> You *really* need me to do that for you?
published a paper somewhere that says smoking doesn't actually cause
cancer, but is in fact good for you, does that make it a "debate"? I
guess it would, eh?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 16, 2013, 12:57:02 AM1/16/13
to
Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>> The plastic containers holding yogurt are sterile too, you idiot
>> No wonder you're a fucking moron.
>> You don't know that food can't be perfectly preserved
>
> The contents are sterilized during the canning process you idiot.
Really?
It's your stated claim, moron, that yogurt, which contains live cultures, is
sterile?
>> The plastic containers holding yogurt are sterile too, you idiot
>> No wonder you're a fucking moron.
>> You don't know that food can't be perfectly preserved
>
> The contents are sterilized during the canning process you idiot.
Really?
It's your stated claim, moron, that yogurt, which contains live cultures, is
sterile?
BillB
Jan 16, 2013, 1:05:34 AM1/16/13
to
bacteria would have to be destroyed prior to canning.
Food products that are canned for long term storage are sterilized. You
really didn't know that?? I guess a 66 IQ doesn't go quite as far as I
thought it did.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 16, 2013, 1:38:49 AM1/16/13
to
BillB wrote:
> On 15/01/2013 9:57 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>>>> The plastic containers holding yogurt are sterile too, you idiot
>>>> No wonder you're a fucking moron.
>>>> You don't know that food can't be perfectly preserved
>>>
>>> The contents are sterilized during the canning process you idiot.
>>
>> Really?
>> It's your stated claim, moron, that yogurt, which contains live
>> cultures, is sterile?
>
> Canned yogurt?? Never heard of it, but if it actually exists the
> bacteria would have to be destroyed prior to canning.
So YOU simply can't read?
> On 15/01/2013 9:57 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>>>> The plastic containers holding yogurt are sterile too, you idiot
>>>> No wonder you're a fucking moron.
>>>> You don't know that food can't be perfectly preserved
>>>
>>> The contents are sterilized during the canning process you idiot.
>>
>> Really?
>> It's your stated claim, moron, that yogurt, which contains live
>> cultures, is sterile?
>
> Canned yogurt?? Never heard of it, but if it actually exists the
> bacteria would have to be destroyed prior to canning.
Scroll back up, shithead
See what the sentence I wrote says
Your 66 IQ test was apparently a fluke
Pepe Papon
Jan 16, 2013, 3:39:38 AM1/16/13
to
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:23:34 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>No, I don't believe the entire idea should be dismissed, but the dangers
>inherent in vaccination are real enough that they should be approached
>very cautiously, and their historical effectiveness has been wildly
>overstated. Certainly the current child vaccination schedule, as you
>suggest, is way out of hand.
Ever known anyone with smallpox? Heard of any recent cases? There's
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>No, I don't believe the entire idea should be dismissed, but the dangers
>inherent in vaccination are real enough that they should be approached
>very cautiously, and their historical effectiveness has been wildly
>overstated. Certainly the current child vaccination schedule, as you
>suggest, is way out of hand.
a reason why you haven't.
>As for polio, the creator of the vaccine � Dr. Jonas Salk � testified
>before Congress in 1977 that the polio vaccine was actually the CAUSE of
>most polio cases since 1961. So no, I would hardly call it an "unmitigated
>success."
The vaccine eliminated millions of cases while causing hundreds. You
have to be out of your mind to claim that this is anything less than a
resounding success.
--
Pepe "Far Superior to Pickle" Papon
Pepe Papon
Jan 16, 2013, 3:42:32 AM1/16/13
to
Travel
Jan 16, 2013, 12:57:34 PM1/16/13
to
52% got a flu shot this year:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
O-PGManager
Jan 16, 2013, 1:17:29 PM1/16/13
to
Truthseeker
Jan 18, 2013, 12:10:11 PM1/18/13
to
On 1/16/13 10:57 AM, Travel wrote:
> 52% got a flu shot this year:
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
The was an editorial in the Denver Post this morning bemoaning the low
> 52% got a flu shot this year:
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
participation in flu vaccination. The author wants a law to make
everyone get a flu shot. He complained that Colorado requires all
motorists to have insurance, but doesn't require everyone to get a flu shot.
Of course, not everyone must buy insurance, you only need it to get a
license to drive on public roads. And insurance just costs you money,
it doesn't put a foreign substance into your body. Somehow I think that
this author, in a different context, would be defending a woman's right
to control her own body. Unless, of course, he wants to inject
something into it that she does not want injected into it.
--
Truthseeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Pepe Papon
Jan 19, 2013, 12:55:28 AM1/19/13
to
not getting a flu shot can spread disease and harm others. And
please don't jump to the conclusion that my pointing this out means I
favor mandatory flu shots.
TruthSeeker
Jan 19, 2013, 12:23:42 PM1/19/13
to
On 18/1/13 10:55 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:10:11 -0700, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/13 10:57 AM, Travel wrote:
>>> 52% got a flu shot this year:
>>
>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
>>
>> The was an editorial in the Denver Post this morning bemoaning the low
>> participation in flu vaccination. The author wants a law to make
>> everyone get a flu shot. He complained that Colorado requires all
>> motorists to have insurance, but doesn't require everyone to get a flu shot.
>>
>> Of course, not everyone must buy insurance, you only need it to get a
>> license to drive on public roads. And insurance just costs you money,
>> it doesn't put a foreign substance into your body. Somehow I think that
>> this author, in a different context, would be defending a woman's right
>> to control her own body. Unless, of course, he wants to inject
>> something into it that she does not want injected into it.
> The difference, of course, flu shots are a public health concern, and
> not getting a flu shot can spread disease and harm others.
But that is a pernicious reason for violating human rights, that we see
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:10:11 -0700, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/13 10:57 AM, Travel wrote:
>>> 52% got a flu shot this year:
>>
>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2013/52_got_a_flu_shot_this_year
>>
>> The was an editorial in the Denver Post this morning bemoaning the low
>> participation in flu vaccination. The author wants a law to make
>> everyone get a flu shot. He complained that Colorado requires all
>> motorists to have insurance, but doesn't require everyone to get a flu shot.
>>
>> Of course, not everyone must buy insurance, you only need it to get a
>> license to drive on public roads. And insurance just costs you money,
>> it doesn't put a foreign substance into your body. Somehow I think that
>> this author, in a different context, would be defending a woman's right
>> to control her own body. Unless, of course, he wants to inject
>> something into it that she does not want injected into it.
> The difference, of course, flu shots are a public health concern, and
> not getting a flu shot can spread disease and harm others.
used all too often. Especially in the health-care area, where the fact
that taxpayers are on the hook for health costs resulting from some
personal decisions is used as a rationale for the government to force
citizens to make the "right" decisions.
None of us being the sole inhabitant of a remote island, choices that we
make affect others. Total freedom is not possible. My concern is that
we are already going too far (IMO much too far) in giving up our rights
for the "good of society." Governments are notoriously bad at making
such mandates, and government power vs. an individual is extremely
asymmetrical.
There is another controversy about flu shots in Colorado, where
health-care workers are required to get them. Some health-care workers
do not want to get flu shots but are threatened with losing their job if
they don't. This is a more complex question; the employers have rights
here as well and they believe that their workers need the flu shots to
protect their patients.
> And
> please don't jump to the conclusion that my pointing this out means I
> favor mandatory flu shots.
opposing mandatory flu shots.
FTR, I oppose them. Also, no one in my immediate family gets them.
--
TruthSeeker
Mossingen
Jan 19, 2013, 2:50:56 PM1/19/13
to
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:16dkf89h019usds88...@4ax.com...
Can you identify anything that wouldn't be a public health concern?
news:16dkf89h019usds88...@4ax.com...
Mossingen
Jan 19, 2013, 2:52:57 PM1/19/13
to
"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:-KudnWfSiYE6S2fN...@giganews.com...
All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
owner to ban smoking. I think you're just fine in allowing government to
control just about everything.
news:-KudnWfSiYE6S2fN...@giganews.com...
owner to ban smoking. I think you're just fine in allowing government to
control just about everything.
fffurken
Jan 19, 2013, 3:08:12 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
> owner to ban smoking.
What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
> owner to ban smoking.
> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
> control just about everything.
Travel A
Jan 19, 2013, 3:07:55 PM1/19/13
to
If an Ebola vaccine were perfected, and an Ebola outbreak occurred in
the U.S., would Rumprider then refuse a mandatory Ebola shot on
principle."?
the U.S., would Rumprider then refuse a mandatory Ebola shot on
principle."?
TruthSeeker
Jan 19, 2013, 6:42:34 PM1/19/13
to
On 19/1/13 12:52 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
> news:-KudnWfSiYE6S2fN...@giganews.com...
> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
> news:-KudnWfSiYE6S2fN...@giganews.com...
>> But that is a pernicious reason for violating human rights, that we see
>> used all too often. Especially in the health-care area, where the fact
>> that taxpayers are on the hook for health costs resulting from some
>> personal decisions is used as a rationale for the government to force
>> citizens to make the "right" decisions.
>> None of us being the sole inhabitant of a remote island, choices that we
>> make affect others. Total freedom is not possible. My concern is that
>> we are already going too far (IMO much too far) in giving up our rights
>> for the "good of society." Governments are notoriously bad at making
>> such mandates, and government power vs. an individual is extremely
>> asymmetrical.
>> There is another controversy about flu shots in Colorado, where
>> health-care workers are required to get them. Some health-care workers
>> do not want to get flu shots but are threatened with losing their job if
>> they don't. This is a more complex question; the employers have rights
>> here as well and they believe that their workers need the flu shots to
>> protect their patients.
>> used all too often. Especially in the health-care area, where the fact
>> that taxpayers are on the hook for health costs resulting from some
>> personal decisions is used as a rationale for the government to force
>> citizens to make the "right" decisions.
>> None of us being the sole inhabitant of a remote island, choices that we
>> make affect others. Total freedom is not possible. My concern is that
>> we are already going too far (IMO much too far) in giving up our rights
>> for the "good of society." Governments are notoriously bad at making
>> such mandates, and government power vs. an individual is extremely
>> asymmetrical.
>> There is another controversy about flu shots in Colorado, where
>> health-care workers are required to get them. Some health-care workers
>> do not want to get flu shots but are threatened with losing their job if
>> they don't. This is a more complex question; the employers have rights
>> here as well and they believe that their workers need the flu shots to
>> protect their patients.
> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
> owner to ban smoking.
No, I don't. They are quite different situations. The bar owner is
> owner to ban smoking.
operating a place of public accommodation, so the State has a legitimate
interest in prohibiting the air from being fouled in such a place. And
the State can have such a prohibition without infringing on anyone's
rights, it's not forcing anyone to put any substance into their body
that they object to (quite the opposite, in fact). So more than seeing
no problem with prohibiting smoking in public places, I heartily call
for such prohibitions. The casinos in Colorado became much more
pleasant environments once the ban there went into effect. We no longer
have the minority of nicotine addicts fouling the air for everyone else.
You know that I've called for legalizing drugs, especially marijuana.
But no drug that is smoked (and thus gets into the air) should be legal
to be smoked in public places. And once someone opens his property to
the public for profit, it is a public place (specifically, a place of
public accommodation).
> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
> control just about everything.
government to do is not at all "allowing government to control just
about everything."
John Karl
Jan 19, 2013, 8:04:51 PM1/19/13
to
Why not all the time?
fffurken
Jan 19, 2013, 8:11:15 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 20, 1:04 am, John Karl <jpk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/13 5:42 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/1/13 12:52 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
> On 1/19/13 5:42 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/1/13 12:52 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was one of his better posts by a country mile.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 19, 2013, 9:59:41 PM1/19/13
to
Mossingen wrote:
> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a
> bar owner to ban smoking. I think you're just fine in allowing
> government to control just about everything.
Being opposed to required flu shots allows freedom of religion (Christian
> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a
> bar owner to ban smoking. I think you're just fine in allowing
> government to control just about everything.
scientists)
Any non-fucking-moron supports public accomodations banning smoking. You
have no right to force customers to breathe fouled air
Mossingen
Jan 19, 2013, 10:02:44 PM1/19/13
to
"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced to go there.
If it's bad for business, he'll ban smoking to make his customers happy; or,
he'll let people smoke and go out of business. But how the fuck can the
government mandate it one way or the other? The government didn't take the
risk of opening the bar, or work there to make it profitable, or do anything
to contribute to the operations of the bar.
>> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
>> control just about everything.
>
> And don't give me that trite bullshit.
Not trite bullshit, a fair comment on a stated position.
news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
>> owner to ban smoking.
>
> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run his
>
>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
>> owner to ban smoking.
>
> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced to go there.
If it's bad for business, he'll ban smoking to make his customers happy; or,
he'll let people smoke and go out of business. But how the fuck can the
government mandate it one way or the other? The government didn't take the
risk of opening the bar, or work there to make it profitable, or do anything
to contribute to the operations of the bar.
>> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
>> control just about everything.
>
> And don't give me that trite bullshit.
Mossingen
Jan 19, 2013, 10:06:39 PM1/19/13
to
"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:odudna0rz_DxsmbN...@giganews.com...
> No, I don't. They are quite different situations. The bar owner is
> operating a place of public accommodation, so the State has a legitimate
> interest in prohibiting the air from being fouled in such a place. And
> the State can have such a prohibition without infringing on anyone's
> rights, it's not forcing anyone to put any substance into their body
> that they object to (quite the opposite, in fact). So more than seeing
> no problem with prohibiting smoking in public places, I heartily call
> for such prohibitions. The casinos in Colorado became much more
> pleasant environments once the ban there went into effect. We no longer
> have the minority of nicotine addicts fouling the air for everyone else.
>
> You know that I've called for legalizing drugs, especially marijuana.
> But no drug that is smoked (and thus gets into the air) should be legal
> to be smoked in public places. And once someone opens his property to
> the public for profit, it is a public place (specifically, a place of
> public accommodation).
>
>> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
>> control just about everything.
>
> Fallacy. To recognize that there are things that are legitimate for
> government to do is not at all "allowing government to control just
> about everything."
smoke in bars just because it doesn't like smoke. It does so because there
are health risks. You accept this rationale in this context, but reject it
in the case of inoculations. I don't see the line you are drawing.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 19, 2013, 10:10:46 PM1/19/13
to
Mossingen wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing
>>> a bar owner to ban smoking.
>>
>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run
> his business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced
> to go there. If it's bad for business, he'll ban smoking to make his
> customers happy; or, he'll let people smoke and go out of business. But
> how the fuck can the government mandate it one way or the other? The
> government didn't take the risk of opening the bar, or work there
> to make it profitable, or do anything to contribute to the operations
> of the bar.
No, they licensed it as a public accomodation, and he is not allowed to
> "fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing
>>> a bar owner to ban smoking.
>>
>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run
> his business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced
> to go there. If it's bad for business, he'll ban smoking to make his
> customers happy; or, he'll let people smoke and go out of business. But
> how the fuck can the government mandate it one way or the other? The
> government didn't take the risk of opening the bar, or work there
> to make it profitable, or do anything to contribute to the operations
> of the bar.
poison the public.
You're making a shithead argument. It's been made in this newsgroup since
the 1990's, but it is STILL a shithead argument
>
>
>>> I think you're just fine in allowing government to
>>> control just about everything.
>>
>> And don't give me that trite bullshit.
>
>
> Not trite bullshit, a fair comment on a stated position.
accomodations
TruthSeeker
Jan 19, 2013, 10:48:38 PM1/19/13
to
mandating inoculations, it is forcing people to put a foreign substance
into their bodies that has both beneficial effects and undesirable side
effects, on the chance that IF they get the flu they MAY pass it on to
others. In the case of banning smoking in places of public
accommodation, the law is PREVENTING individuals from putting harmful
substances into the air that the other people in that place cannot avoid
breathing into their own bodies. Pretty much the opposite. The
non-smoking law is protecting individuals from being subjected to
unwanted substances being put into their bodies, not mandating that they
be ingested.
So both rejecting the inoculation mandate and having the smoking ban
protects individual's rights to not have things put into their bodies
that they don't want put in.
Some people say that the bar owner should have the right to ban or allow
smoking as he wishes, on his property, and that his customers have the
choice of not patronizing there. There is some merit in that, but a bar
is still a place of public accommodation, where the owner of the
property has opened it up to the public. Opening it to the public (as
opposed to a private home, say) entails a greater responsibility to the
public, and permits the government to establish regulations over that
space that are in the public interest and protect the rights of the patrons.
John Karl
Jan 19, 2013, 10:49:52 PM1/19/13
to
On 1/19/13 9:02 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
>>> owner to ban smoking.
>>
>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run his
> business the way he sees fit.
So it would be ok for him to serve his customers methanol? Why should
> "fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5a10630e-0d7d-4178...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this from a guy who doesn't see a problem in the state forcing a bar
>>> owner to ban smoking.
>>
>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run his
> business the way he sees fit.
the government be allowed to interfere with that?
For fuck sakes, no one is forced to go there.
> If it's bad for business, he'll ban smoking to make his customers happy; or,
> he'll let people smoke and go out of business. But how the fuck can the
> government mandate it one way or the other?
fffurken
Jan 19, 2013, 11:05:32 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 20, 3:02 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run his
> business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced to go there.
But people are effectively forced to work there.
> > What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>
> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run his
> business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced to go there.
I don't particularly listen to the argument from fucked in the ass
retards like Beldin only concerned about his fucked in the ass
girlfriend who can barely wobble inside an average door width.
The way this was approached in my country was that it was about
workers and the workplace. Why should anyone doing a job be forced to
passively smoke when we know now that passive smoking is harmful?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 19, 2013, 11:28:16 PM1/19/13
to
fffurken wrote:
> On Jan 20, 3:02 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>>
>> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run
>> his business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced
>> to go there.
>
> But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
> I don't particularly listen to the argument from fucked in the ass
> retards like Beldin only concerned about his fucked in the ass
> girlfriend who can barely wobble inside an average door width.
Dude, please.
> On Jan 20, 3:02 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> What exactly IS the problem with that in your view?
>>
>> It's an infringement on the property rights of the bar owner to run
>> his business the way he sees fit. For fuck sakes, no one is forced
>> to go there.
>
> But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
> I don't particularly listen to the argument from fucked in the ass
> retards like Beldin only concerned about his fucked in the ass
> girlfriend who can barely wobble inside an average door width.
As the premiere fucked in the ass retard of Ireland, you lead the league in
MAKING fucked in the ass retard pronouncements, and while workplace safety
IS a concern, a bigger one is the general right of access of everyone who'd
like to breathe.
You must be drying out. You're even stupider than normal
popinjay999
Jan 19, 2013, 11:35:27 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 19, 8:05 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
Is that how it works in your country? Kinda like Cuba.
>
> But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
fffurken
Jan 19, 2013, 11:45:43 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 20, 4:28 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> while workplace safety
> IS a concern, a bigger one is the general right of access of everyone who'd
> like to breathe.
No, you're wrong.
In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend doesn't
matter.
wrote:
> while workplace safety
> IS a concern, a bigger one is the general right of access of everyone who'd
> like to breathe.
In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend doesn't
matter.
fffurken
Jan 19, 2013, 11:47:00 PM1/19/13
to
On Jan 20, 4:35 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
> Is that how it works in your country? Kinda like Cuba.
Shut up. Moron.
> > But people are effectively forced to work there.
>
> Is that how it works in your country? Kinda like Cuba.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 19, 2013, 11:57:18 PM1/19/13
to
fffurken wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:28 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> while workplace safety
>> IS a concern, a bigger one is the general right of access of
>> everyone who'd like to breathe.
>
> No, you're wrong.
No, not at all
> On Jan 20, 4:28 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> while workplace safety
>> IS a concern, a bigger one is the general right of access of
>> everyone who'd like to breathe.
>
> No, you're wrong.
>
> In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend doesn't
> matter.
statement is as moronic as most of the shit that flows out of some oraface
in Ireland
fffurken
Jan 20, 2013, 12:03:46 AM1/20/13
to
On Jan 20, 4:57 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> > No, you're wrong.
>
> No, not at all
Yes, you are.
> > In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend doesn't
> > matter.
>
> Given I do not have a "girlfriend" and my beloved is not a fat pig
Do you have a wife now or are you repeating that lie?
And she is, I've seen her picture, I can tell easily by that.
wrote:
> > No, you're wrong.
>
> No, not at all
> > In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend doesn't
> > matter.
>
> Given I do not have a "girlfriend" and my beloved is not a fat pig
And she is, I've seen her picture, I can tell easily by that.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 20, 2013, 12:18:43 AM1/20/13
to
fffurken wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:57 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> No, you're wrong.
>>
>> No, not at all
>
> Yes, you are.
>
>>> In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend
>>> doesn't matter.
>>
>> Given I do not have a "girlfriend" and my beloved is not a fat pig
>
> Do you have a wife now or are you repeating that lie?
All your assumptions, as usual, are false
> On Jan 20, 4:57 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> No, you're wrong.
>>
>> No, not at all
>
> Yes, you are.
>
>>> In the greater scheme of things, your fat pig of a girlfriend
>>> doesn't matter.
>>
>> Given I do not have a "girlfriend" and my beloved is not a fat pig
>
> Do you have a wife now or are you repeating that lie?
>
> And she is, I've seen her picture, I can tell easily by that.
Booze makes your eyes fail
fffurken
Jan 20, 2013, 12:22:52 AM1/20/13
to
On Jan 20, 5:18 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> There is one picture of her, and she is not fat in it, nor is she fat now
Yeah, she is fat.
I don't even know how the fuck your dick gets hard.
Maybe you pretend she's a man.
wrote:
> There is one picture of her, and she is not fat in it, nor is she fat now
I don't even know how the fuck your dick gets hard.
Maybe you pretend she's a man.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 20, 2013, 1:20:49 AM1/20/13
to
fffurken wrote:
> On Jan 20, 5:18 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> There is one picture of her, and she is not fat in it, nor is she
>> fat now
>
> Yeah, she is fat.
Given it's a head shot, what do you base that statement on, apart from your
> On Jan 20, 5:18 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> There is one picture of her, and she is not fat in it, nor is she
>> fat now
>
> Yeah, she is fat.
ass.
>
> I don't even know how the fuck your dick gets hard.
fffurken
Jan 20, 2013, 1:27:43 AM1/20/13
to
On Jan 20, 6:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> > Yeah, she is fat.
>
> Given it's a head shot, what do you base that statement on, apart from your
> ass.
It wasn't a "head shot". lol You sound like you want to kill her in a
computer game.
Most of her body was in full view, and it was disgusting.
How much does she weigh and what is her height? You must have figured
this out for yourself.
wrote:
> > Yeah, she is fat.
>
> Given it's a head shot, what do you base that statement on, apart from your
> ass.
computer game.
Most of her body was in full view, and it was disgusting.
How much does she weigh and what is her height? You must have figured
this out for yourself.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 20, 2013, 2:39:13 AM1/20/13
to
fffurken wrote:
> On Jan 20, 6:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, she is fat.
>>
>> Given it's a head shot, what do you base that statement on, apart
>> from your ass.
>
> It wasn't a "head shot". lol You sound like you want to kill her in a
> computer game.
>
Wow
> On Jan 20, 6:20 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, she is fat.
>>
>> Given it's a head shot, what do you base that statement on, apart
>> from your ass.
>
> It wasn't a "head shot". lol You sound like you want to kill her in a
> computer game.
>
You're a fucking idiot
It was a picture of her face. mostly, you moron
> Most of her body was in full view, and it was disgusting.
>
word "most" means?
popinjay999
Jan 20, 2013, 2:58:22 AM1/20/13
to
On Jan 19, 11:39 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
wrote:
>
> You're a fucking idiot
>
> It was a picture of her face. mostly, you moron
>
Don't forget the chins.
>
> It was a picture of her face. mostly, you moron
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jan 20, 2013, 3:03:20 AM1/20/13
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages