Doctor says FLU VACCINE will cause 60,000 deaths in France alone
john
Doctor says FLU VACCINE will cause 60,000 deaths in France alone
Youtube
Monday, Sept 14th, 2009
Dr Marc Girard, a specialist in the side effects of drugs and a medical
expert commissioned by French courts, has said said on French TV that the
"swine flu" vaccine could cause 60,000 deaths in France, especially among
young people, children and pregnant women.
He also said that the people promoting the "swine flu" vaccine are doing so
because they have links with the pharmaceutical company.
The problem with the "swine flu" vaccine is that it is not just "badly
developed" but "not developed", he said, adding that it is being prepared in
conditions that endanger the public health.
GO TO WEBPAGE FOR YOUTUBE LINK in French
TRANSLATION:
"A vaccine is being developed in conditions of amateurism such as I have
never seen. Lets take the pessimistic hypothesis: one death among every 1000
patients. There are plans to vaccinate 60 million people, and you so you
already have 60,000 deaths, and this time, young people, children, pregnant
women."
"What you are saying is serious because many people are getting ready to get
the vaccine and you, you are saying: "You must not get a vaccination!"
" YES, it is a vaccine that has been developed at great speed in conditions
that put in danger the public health. There is a need to return back to the
obligation that politicians have right now to protect citizens against the
desire of the pharmaceutical industry to make money with all these vaccines.
There is a public health code of law from 2007 which obliges all health
professionals who give their opinions to reveal their interests. That law is
ridiculed every day. All the people who you see saying: "the flu, its very
serious, have interests, their lines interests, and that is why they say
what they say. The public health administration is an example to us of a
daily violation of the law. I am a medical specialist and I am against
medicines that have no purpose. This vaccine is not just badly developed: it
is not developed!"
Happy Oyster
>http://www.prisonplanet.com/doctor-says-flu-vaccine-will-cause-60000-deaths-in-france-alone.html
>
>
>Doctor says FLU VACCINE will cause 60,000 deaths in France alone
>Youtube
>Monday, Sept 14th, 2009
That is crap.
--
Der Fall Nieber et al : PFUSCH IM LABOR!
Peter Parry
>Dr Marc Girard, a specialist in the side effects of drugs and a medical
>expert commissioned by French courts,
Is this the same Marc Girard who is a mathematician, practicing
psychotherapist of the Freudian tradition and "Independent
pharmaceutical consultant "?
His "specialisation" appears to be self awarded and he is an
ex-medical expert. His name was removed from the French court experts
list some time ago cutting short a promising career as a professional
witness.
An editor of "Medical Veritas" along with such anti-vaccination
luminaries as Boyd E Haley, Betsy Hicks, Viera Scheibner and of
course the ubiquitous Andrew Wakefield all under the control of Gary
S. Goldman whose major work was a Mom's Choice Awards Finalist in the
category of Adult Fiction?
Smarter Than You
"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:uap6b551u1mkb57cm...@4ax.com...
So.... If one seeks advice, why would anyone come to you rather than an
educated person?
john
glad too see her has got up your nose
Peter Parry
<too...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is the Dr. Marc Girard who is far better educated than you are Peter.
Almost certainly.
>So.... If one seeks advice, why would anyone come to you rather than an
>educated person?
One goes for advice to someone qualified and experienced in the
subject. The advice given, if complex, may then be examined in some
detail. However, if you are looking at a claim in science you don't
want advice you want facts.
Above the door of The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of
Natural Knowledge, more commonly known simply as the Royal Society, is
their motto from 1660 "Nullius in Verba" or "take nobody's word for
it". Personal authority is meaningless in science. The truth of
scientific matters is found through experiment and facts not through
citation of authority.
John, and others, frequently have to resort to argumentum ad
verecundium - to the logical fallacy of argument from authority as
they simply have nothing else. They claim that a statement must be
correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is
regarded (at least by them) as authoritative. That is often the whole
substance of their claims.
However, they often lack even a sources of particular authority (or in
some cases any authority whatsoever) so to back up their claims it is
necessary to include misleading descriptions of the source.
Hence Girad is described as "Marc Girard, a specialist in the side
effects of drugs and a medical expert commissioned by French courts,"
In fact he is neither a specialist nor is he a medical expert
commissioned by the French Courts.
Had he been described as "Marc Girard is a mathematician who later
trained as a psychiatrist. He writes for a fringe anti-vaccination
on-line publication and was dismissed as an expert witness by the
French courts" it would have been more accurate but not quite the
spin that those quoting his press release would want. It would
tarnish the veneer of misleading respectability they wish to
encourage.
You see the same when post nominal's such as PhD are used when they
are either bought from American degree mills or are in an area
irrelevant to the subject being discussed (such as calling someone XXX
PhD when they comment on medicine when their degree and doctorate are
actually in geology).
If these claims are valid why is it necessary to be so disingenuous
when describing their author?
Who is making a claim is of course unimportant. What is important is
the quality of their work. Is it published so others can examine the
source data? Are the assumptions made and the analysis carried out
documented sufficiently well that others can follow them? Crucially,
can others repeat the results?
Now therein lies a slight problem. Dr Girard appears for many years
to have relied upon newspapers,TV, fringe publications and the rather
laughable medicalveritas (where nothing is properly reviewed before
publication) to "publish" his work. His studies cannot be checked. His
claims cannot be examined or verified. He relies upon his personal
authority rather than facts, and his personal authority is rather
threadbare.
Peter Parry
>
>
>glad too see her has got up your nose
Thank you, a most perspicacious contribution.
Smarter Than You
D. C. Sessions
> John, and others, frequently have to resort to argumentum ad
> verecundium - to the logical fallacy of argument from authority as
> they simply have nothing else. They claim that a statement must be
> correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is
> regarded (at least by them) as authoritative. That is often the whole
> substance of their claims.
Ah, but you missed Part Two: how they choose those particular "experts"
and reject hosts of others who disagree with them. And of course, that
last phrase is the key.
--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+
D. C. Sessions
> Doctor says FLU VACCINE will cause 60,000 deaths in France alone
So when that turns out to be a bum prediction, John Scudamore will
swear off anti-vaccinationism forever?
Sounds like a simple, straightforward experiment.