Vaccine Coverup
PeterB - Original
still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
agencies. I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
Mark Probert
> This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> agencies.
I have often found that these so-called facts are merely made up, do
not exist, or are so cherry picked as to lose their meaning.
You, of course, believe anything anyone says about how bad vaccines
are. Your level of credulity is utterly astounding.
Mark Probert
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 9, 4:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > agencies.
>
Markey, the only thing you've ever found was already written down for
you in a script.
> , do
> not exist, or are so cherry picked as to lose their meaning.
>
> You, of course, believe anything anyone says about how bad vaccines
> are.
The simpsonwood disclosure is not a statement of belief but a
transcript of a meeting by those whose interests you serve. People
can read it for themselves, then make up their own minds.
Your level of credulity is utterly astounding.
I once believed in vaccine but the facts forced me to adopt a
different view. I dare say you have never reversed your position on
this or any other substantive issue.
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 9, 4:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > agencies. I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
> > don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
> > promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
>
> >http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm
>
> Ugh. Simpsonwood. Debunked:
You would naturally say that in defense of the drug makers, whose
ethics resemble your own. You should read about your tactics in the
"Warning" post, at http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
Mark Probert
Your tactics show you are afraid of the truth. You snipped the link
where it shows that this conspiracy crap about Simpsonwood is utter
bullshit. If you and your ilk did not have conspiracy crap, you would
have nothing at all. This is why it is pointless to try to discuss
anything with you. It is far more efficient to call you on your
tactics, and then show where you are a moron.
Here's the link:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=si...
As for your warning post, you need to poison the well since you have
nothing to back you up, except tortured logic, cherry picked quotes,
and second hand books.
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 9, 10:34 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 5:45 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 4:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > > > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > > > agencies. I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
> > > > don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
> > > > promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
>
> > > >http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm
>
> > > Ugh. Simpsonwood. Debunked:
>
> > You would naturally say that in defense of the drug makers, whose
> > ethics resemble your own. You should read about your tactics in the
> > "Warning" post, athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
> Your tactics show you are afraid of the truth. You snipped the link
> where it shows that this conspiracy crap about Simpsonwood is utter
> bullshit.
Your link to a blog on which other pharmnuts distort the facts on
behalf of the drug makers is meaningless.
> If you and your ilk did not have conspiracy crap, you would
> have nothing at all.
The Simponwood disclosure is not about conspiracy, but complicity. I
have only used the word "conspiracy" to describe the 1999 price-fixing
scheme in which various drug makers were found guilty of that crime.
> This is why it is pointless to try to discuss
> anything with you. It is far more efficient to call you on your
> tactics, and then show where you are a moron.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=si...
> As for your warning post, you need to poison the well since you have
> nothing to back you up, except tortured logic, cherry picked quotes,
> and second hand books.
Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
Mark Probert
> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 10:34 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 5:45 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 4:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > > > > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > > > > agencies. I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
> > > > > don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
> > > > > promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
>
> > > > >http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm
>
> > > > Ugh. Simpsonwood. Debunked:
>
> > > You would naturally say that in defense of the drug makers, whose
> > > ethics resemble your own. You should read about your tactics in the
> > > "Warning" post, athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
> > Your tactics show you are afraid of the truth. You snipped the link
> > where it shows that this conspiracy crap about Simpsonwood is utter
> > bullshit.
>
> Your link to a blog on which other pharmnuts distort the facts on
> behalf of the drug makers is meaningless.
This is precisely why trying a factual argument with you is utterly
pointless. I am certain that you never read one article. Not one.
You are afraid of the truth.
> > If you and your ilk did not have conspiracy crap, you would
> > have nothing at all.
>
> The Simponwood disclosure is not about conspiracy, but complicity. I
> have only used the word "conspiracy" to describe the 1999 price-fixing
> scheme in which various drug makers were found guilty of that crime.
There ya, go, with your IDIOTsyncratic use of the King's English. More
proof of why trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time.
> > This is why it is pointless to try to discuss
> > anything with you. It is far more efficient to call you on your
> > tactics, and then show where you are a moron.
>
> > Here's the link:
>
> >http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=si...
> > As for your warning post, you need to poison the well since you have
> > nothing to back you up, except tortured logic, cherry picked quotes,
> > and second hand books.
>
> Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
Go visit PubMed. Lots of primary sources, but, no books. Book users,
like yourself, need to have someone interpret science for them. Sadly,
you rely on the worst ones.
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 10, 4:40 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > > > > > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > > > > > agencies. I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
> > > > > > don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
> > > > > > promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
>
> > > > > >http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm
>
> > > > > Ugh. Simpsonwood. Debunked:
>
> > > > You would naturally say that in defense of the drug makers, whose
> > > > ethics resemble your own. You should read about your tactics in the
> > > > "Warning" post, athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
> > > Your tactics show you are afraid of the truth. You snipped the link
> > > where it shows that this conspiracy crap about Simpsonwood is utter
> > > bullshit.
>
> > Your link to a blog on which other pharmnuts distort the facts on
> > behalf of the drug makers is meaningless.
>
> This is precisely why trying a factual argument with you is utterly
> pointless. I am certain that you never read one article. Not one.
A blog is not a "factual argument," much less a source of published
science. Is that all you've got?
> You are afraid of the truth.
>
> > > If you and your ilk did not have conspiracy crap, you would
> > > have nothing at all.
>
> > The Simponwood disclosure is not about conspiracy, but complicity. I
> > have only used the word "conspiracy" to describe the 1999 price-fixing
> > scheme in which various drug makers were found guilty of that crime.
>
> There ya, go, with your IDIOTsyncratic use of the King's English.
Oh? Care to prove it using any published source? Let's see if you
can.
> More
> proof of why trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time.
Meaning you don't engage in discussion but continue to promote your
agenda. Thanks for proving my point.
> > > This is why it is pointless to try to discuss
> > > anything with you. It is far more efficient to call you on your
> > > tactics, and then show where you are a moron.
>
> > > Here's the link:
>
> > >http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=si...
> > > As for your warning post, you need to poison the well since you have
> > > nothing to back you up, except tortured logic, cherry picked quotes,
> > > and second hand books.
>
> > Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> > baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> Go visit PubMed.
Markey, here is the challenge. Cite 10 studies (out of hundreds of
thousands) on vaccine effectiveness and safety using double blind RCT
data. I already know the answer, but I'll accept a concession from
you that it isn't possible, for the obvious reason that they don't
exist. The question is whether you are honest enough to admit it?
> Lots of primary sources, but, no books. Book users,
> like yourself, need to have someone interpret science for them. Sadly,
> you rely on the worst ones.
Just answer the question.
Jan Drew
still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
Jan Drew
> On Dec 9, 4:53�pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This article by Dr. Russell Blaylock was published in 2004 but is
> > still relevant for facts never disclosed by government "health"
> > agencies. �I keep this on hand as a reminder of how much we still
> > don't know about the risks of vaccine and the greed that drives their
> > promotion -- even here in the newsgroups.
>
> >http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm
>
> Ugh. Simpsonwood. Debunked:
>
Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/
scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone,
somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his
miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to
admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a
DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions
here.)
Jan Drew
>you are a moron.
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,200 for Mark Probert moron. (0.49
seconds)
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, *Mark* has found no published science backing up his baseless
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
He can't.
Mark Probert
Bullshit in 2004, old bullshit in 2009.
Bullshit, like you, Jan, does not get better with age.
Mark Probert
WOW! You rad something there. Did you bother to read what he wrote
about Simpsonwood and why it is bullshit? I am sure you did not.
Mark Probert
Yes, I do have a knack for finding them. I found you.
Mark Probert
No, stupid, I have found published SCIENCE, but Petey does not want to
go there and read it.
Mark Probert
Asked and answered. There is plenty of science, but Petey does not
want to go where it is published. Hoever, here's a link to an
excellent article about a study showing that Wakefield is full of
Drew.
Note how this article addresses the fact that his study has never been
duplicated.
PeterB - Original
PULEEEZE. You've never once cited specific scientific studies proving
vaccine safety or effectiveness. Typical pharmnut hand waving.
> There is plenty of science, but Petey does not
> want to go where it is published.
Wrong. I've spent more time reading articles in Pubmed than you've
spent avoiding books. And the junk science you are referring to is
meaningless, which is why you refuse to cite particular studies. You
know you couldn't defend them, even assuming you would understand
them.
> Hoever, here's a link to an
> excellent article about a study showing that Wakefield is full of
> Drew.
Right, change the subject and hope no one notices. Coward.
Peter Bowditch
>Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
>baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
PeterB - Original
I'm not your audience, markey. You are doing a great disservice to
every reader who would like to see this evidence for vaccine
effectiveness and safety that you claim exists. Pointing to a
database and saying, "There! You'll find your proof there!" is like
you referring to that invisible reading list.
Peter Bowditch
Trumped!
Results 1 - 10 of about 415,000 for Jan Drew moron. (0.34 seconds)
PeterB - Original
I'm not your audience, markey. You are doing a great disservice to
every reader who would like to see this evidence for vaccine
effectiveness and safety that you claim exists. Pointing to a
database and saying, "There! You'll find your proof there!" is like
you referring to that invisible reading list of yours.
Mark Probert
The article addresses vaccine safety. It shows that a recent study
shows no link between MMR and autism, and the fact that MMR may even
be protective against autism. Too early to claim that, but, that is
what it shows.
>
>
>
> > Note how this article addresses the fact that his study has never been
> > duplicated.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yax4zp8-
You claim to read pubmed, but you deny vaccine safety and
effectiveness. Obviously, you read the wrong studies.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound. Surely you can point
to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
then?
PeterB - Original
First, I see no link to a pubmed article. Second, I posted a link
earlier showing that childhood mortality is highest in those nations
with the greatest number of childhood vaccines in their immunization
schedules, and lowest in those nations with the least number of
childhood vaccines in their immunization schedules. You, of course,
ignored this.
> > > Note how this article addresses the fact that his study has never been
> > > duplicated.
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/yax4zp8-
>
> You claim to read pubmed, but you deny vaccine safety and
> effectiveness. Obviously, you read the wrong studies.
No, I correctly identify studies that are poorly designed. Even a
well designed study can't prove that vaccines don't trigger spectral
autism. Proving a positive correlation is quite difficult, failing to
prove one is quite easy. No one expects you to get that.
Peter Bowditch
Mark Probert
> On Dec 10, 10:49 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> > PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>
> I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound.
What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
There are other models that can be used quite effectively
Surely you can point
> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
> effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
> then?
>
>
>
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/- Hide quoted text -
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >spectral autism
>
> Woot!!! Another invented term.
It would be obvious to any intelligent reader (you're excused) that I
was referring to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for its broader
definition, one that I suspect you also claim doesn't exist. But no,
the term I used was not coined by me, as you would know if you had
bothered to do one of your brilliant word string searches. As always,
I prove what I say with citations, while you do not.
http://www.campusbug.com/ezwriting/file.php?id=20863
http://www.adhdchildparenting.com/the-connecton-between-autism-and-vaccines.php
http://www.autism99.org/articles/Autism_and_ADHD_Linked_to_Vaccines.htm
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 10, 11:20 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:49 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> > > PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> > > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> > > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>
> > I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
> > effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound.
>
> What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
Because the study of population-wide medical interventions requires
more than theoretical science, that's why. This is another example of
the methodology used to promote near universal application of HRT in
unsuspecting women for decades before the evidence of harm was
uncovered.
> There are other models that can be used quite effectively
You mean they can be used to effectively satisfy the demands of FDA,
which permits such nostrums to be sold as "medicine."
> > Surely you can point
> > to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
> > effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
> > then?
So, your belief in vaccine is just a matter of personal faith. But we
knew that.
> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/-Hide quoted text -
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 11, 2:23�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >spectral autism
>>
>> Woot!!! Another invented term.
>
>It would be obvious to any intelligent reader (you're excused) that I
>was referring to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for its broader
>definition, one that I suspect you also claim doesn't exist.
I am well aware of the term "autism spectrum". In fact I sat opposite
someone on that spectrum at dinner last Saturday night. By the way,
she thinks that people who say autism is caused by vaccines are turds,
but what would she know, being autistic and all.
Electromagnetic radiation has a spectrum, but I don't believe I've
ever heard a physicist use the term "spectral radio".
< But no,
>the term I used was not coined by me, as you would know if you had
>bothered to do one of your brilliant word string searches. As always,
>I prove what I say with citations, while you do not.
>
>http://www.campusbug.com/ezwriting/file.php?id=20863
The Geiers! Don't make me laugh.
The expression "spectral autism" does not appear on that page.
>
>http://www.adhdchildparenting.com/the-connecton-between-autism-and-vaccines.php
Reference to the Geiers!! Don't make me laugh.
>
>http://www.autism99.org/articles/Autism_and_ADHD_Linked_to_Vaccines.htm
The Geiers!! Don't make me laugh.
So, you found that the Geiers use the idiotic expression "spectral
autism" and you tell me that three times as if repeating it makes it
true.
Do you approve of the chemical castration of autistic children? The
Geiers do.
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 10, 11:20�pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 10:49�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
>> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>>
>> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>>
>> I already have. �The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
>> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound. �
>
>What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
>There are other models that can be used quite effectively
Anti-vaccination liars know that, which is why they keep asking for
"double blinded RCTs". When they are actually shown some of these they
add the word "crossover", because they know that such a study is
impossible and therefore no examples can be found.
>
>Surely you can point
>> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
>> effective and safe? �No? �It's just a matter of personal faith
>> then?
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
--
PeterB - Original
> Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 11:20 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 10:49 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> >> > PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> >> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> >> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>
> >> I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
> >> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound.
>
> >What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
> >There are other models that can be used quite effectively
>
What they know is that ProVAC liars cannot produce valid studies
proving vaccine effectiveness or safety. All you can do is point to a
large collection of articles and say "It's there, I promise!" But, as
I've shown repeatedly, it isn't.
>, which is why they keep asking for
> "double blinded RCTs". When they are actually shown some of these they
> add the word "crossover", because they know that such a study is
> impossible and therefore no examples can be found.
You're skating. I have never asked for a study that can't be done.
Your refusal to produce published science that you claim is the basis
for your belief in vaccine, however, speaks volumes.
> >Surely you can point
> >> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
> >> effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
> >> then?
What a surprise that he can't **Or Won't**
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 11, 2:23 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >spectral autism
>
> >> Woot!!! Another invented term.
>
> >It would be obvious to any intelligent reader (you're excused) that I
> >was referring to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for its broader
> >definition, one that I suspect you also claim doesn't exist.
>
> I am well aware of the term "autism spectrum". In fact I sat opposite
> someone on that spectrum at dinner last Saturday night. By the way,
> she thinks that people who say autism is caused by vaccines are turds,
> but what would she know, being autistic and all.
>
> Electromagnetic radiation has a spectrum, but I don't believe I've
> ever heard a physicist use the term "spectral radio".
>
> < But no,
>
> >the term I used was not coined by me, as you would know if you had
> >bothered to do one of your brilliant word string searches. As always,
> >I prove what I say with citations, while you do not.
>
> >http://www.campusbug.com/ezwriting/file.php?id=20863
>
> The Geiers! Don't make me laugh.
You said that I invented the term, and I proved you wrong, as I always
do. Now, here is the same term in a syllabus at Northeastern
University in Boston: http://www.psych.neu.edu/resources/syllabi/2008_spring/ricci_u514.pdf
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19606510?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntr...
>
> The expression "spectral autism" does not appear on that page.
It was cited for its reference to Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is
clearly (to any thinking person) what "spectral autism" refers to.
> >http://www.adhdchildparenting.com/the-connecton-between-autism-and-va...
>
> Reference to the Geiers!! Don't make me laugh.
>
>
>
> >http://www.autism99.org/articles/Autism_and_ADHD_Linked_to_Vaccines.htm
>
> The Geiers!! Don't make me laugh.
>
> So, you found that the Geiers use the idiotic expression "spectral
> autism" and you tell me that three times as if repeating it makes it
> true.
Since you hadn't heard it before and didn't know what it referred to,
your use of the word "idiotic" is clearly a reference to yourself.
> Do you approve of the chemical castration of autistic children? The
> Geiers do.
Not relevant to the complaint you lodged above, nor to the Simpsonwood
disclosure that is the topic of this thread.
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 11, 4:45�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 10, 11:20�pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 10, 10:49�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
>> >> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>>
>> >> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>>
>> >> I already have. �The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
>> >> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound. �
>>
>> >What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
>> >There are other models that can be used quite effectively
>>
>> Anti-vaccination liars know that...
>
>What they know is that ProVAC liars cannot produce valid studies
>proving vaccine effectiveness or safety. All you can do is point to a
>large collection of articles and say "It's there, I promise!" But, as
>I've shown repeatedly, it isn't.
No, you have never shown that, because you won't look at the list and
say which of those thousands of studies are wrong.
>
>>, which is why they keep asking for
>> "double blinded RCTs". When they are actually shown some of these they
>> add the word "crossover", because they know that such a study is
>> impossible and therefore no examples can be found.
>
>You're skating. I have never asked for a study that can't be done.
>Your refusal to produce published science that you claim is the basis
>for your belief in vaccine, however, speaks volumes.
>
>> >Surely you can point
>> >> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
>> >> effective and safe? �No? �It's just a matter of personal faith
>> >> then?
>
>What a surprise that he can't **Or Won't**
Done it many times. I see no reason to do it again.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> >> >> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> >> >> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>
> >> >> I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
> >> >> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound.
>
> >> >What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
> >> >There are other models that can be used quite effectively
>
> >> Anti-vaccination liars know that...
>
> >What they know is that ProVAC liars cannot produce valid studies
> >proving vaccine effectiveness or safety. All you can do is point to a
> >large collection of articles and say "It's there, I promise!" But, as
> >I've shown repeatedly, it isn't.
>
> No, you have never shown that, because you won't look at the list and
> say which of those thousands of studies are wrong.
Bullshit. The only list you produced was a meaningless collection of
articles in which the words "vaccine safety" appear, often in
separate paragraphs. I'm talking about specific studies designed to
test vaccine safety over time that you have *personally* read and can
point to. Without that, your conviction that vaccines are both safe
and effective are apparently based on nothing.
> >>, which is why they keep asking for
> >> "double blinded RCTs". When they are actually shown some of these they
> >> add the word "crossover", because they know that such a study is
> >> impossible and therefore no examples can be found.
>
> >You're skating. I have never asked for a study that can't be done.
> >Your refusal to produce published science that you claim is the basis
> >for your belief in vaccine, however, speaks volumes.
< chirp >
> >> >Surely you can point
> >> >> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
> >> >> effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
> >> >> then?
>
> >What a surprise that he can't **Or Won't**
>
> Done it many times. I see no reason to do it again.
That's right, run away. You're good at that.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >Let us know when you find any published science backing up your
> >> >> > >baseless claims that vaccines are effective and safe.
>
> >> >> > Plenty of both in PubMed. Look it up (if you dare).
>
> >> >> I already have. The absence of double blind RCT data on vaccine
> >> >> effectiveness and safety in Pubmed is profound.
>
> >> >What makes you think that that is the standard for testing vaccines?
> >> >There are other models that can be used quite effectively
>
> >> Anti-vaccination liars know that...
>
> >What they know is that ProVAC liars cannot produce valid studies
> >proving vaccine effectiveness or safety. All you can do is point to a
> >large collection of articles and say "It's there, I promise!" But, as
> >I've shown repeatedly, it isn't.
>
> No, you have never shown that, because you won't look at the list and
> say which of those thousands of studies are wrong.
Bullshit. The only list you produced was a meaningless collection of
articles in which the words "vaccine" and "safety" appear, often in
separate paragraphs. I'm talking about specific studies designed to
test vaccine safety over a meaningful period of time that you have
*personally* read and can point to. Without that, your belief that
vaccines are both safe and effective is just that - a belief.
> >>, which is why they keep asking for
> >> "double blinded RCTs". When they are actually shown some of these they
> >> add the word "crossover", because they know that such a study is
> >> impossible and therefore no examples can be found.
>
> >You're skating. I have never asked for a study that can't be done.
> >Your refusal to produce published science that you claim is the basis
> >for your belief in vaccine, however, speaks volumes.
< chirp >
> >> >Surely you can point
> >> >> to a few good studies that have convinced you that vaccines are
> >> >> effective and safe? No? It's just a matter of personal faith
> >> >> then?
>
> >What a surprise that he can't **Or Won't**
>
> Done it many times. I see no reason to do it again.
That's right, run away. You're good at that.
Brian Gaff
local health workers say they will voluntarily get the swine flu jab.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fc0e0c6-6171-4df4...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...