Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

[Greg Beattie]

John

If we were forced to incorporate 'anti' in our name we would, according to the very same legislation being used to justify that force, have to ensure our activities are in line with that name. That would mean no more pro-vaccine views allowed here. You'd be the first to be booted out. Although some may appreciate that happening, I wouldn't. It would create an 'us' and 'them' and consequently add to the division between everyone. No chance of meeting and resolving. 

Of course you aren't the only one we'd have to get rid of. And not just from here. All the blog discussions going back years. You and all your fellow vaccine supporters have written a huge amount toward those. They'd all have to go. As well as links to government websites, medical journals etc. We'd have to strip a lot out. And that's just the online activity. Is this the best solution? 

As to your other question - what pro-vaccine views do I hold? Well I'm sure you're aware of my personal views, as I've mentioned them often. I'm yet to be convinced of any practical value in vaccination. If you're asking what pro-vaccine views does AVN hold, my answer is that it doesn't hold any views for or against. It's a forum for the dissemination and discussion of information, as well as a guardian of the rights of every member of our community to choose freely, without fear or favour. It doesn't have a 'mind' and there is no viewpoint or stance for or against written into its constitution or objectives.

The journalist's words were his own paraphrasing of a collection of answers I gave to his questions. You must remember that for every word published there are probably 50 spoken in the interview. I think he did a good job of paraphrasing but not perfect. It hardly ever is.

Thanks

Greg

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Hi Greg,

You were quoted recently in Australian Doctor.  

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

I was wondering if you could tell us all what pro-vaccine views you represent?  I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination.  Maybe you could being by telling us all what pro-vaccine views you hold?

Thanks,

John

[Harry Phillips]

"That would mean no more pro-vaccine views allowed here."...blah blah blah non-sequitur non-sequitur non-sequitur blah blah blah...

Wait what? You think people coming to the AVN site and discussions would think we are part of the AVN organisation? Really? In that case, can I have a raise? It is not about the discussions it is about the information *you* and as an *organisation* provide.

The AVN does not and has NEVER ever provide one single piece of provax info in it's entire history. Sure there has been discussions where you provide anecdotes and unsupported claims against people that use facts and evidence but you and every other person that is part of the AVN is anti-vax, period.

The people in the AVN hierarchy don't display a great deal of comprehension skills do you?

On 14 March 2013 19:07, Harry Phillips <ha...@tux.com.au> wrote:

That was not the question Greg, as usual you cannot provide a shred of evidence of your claim.

You "claimed" you had pro-vax info, I and every single other person on the planet has not seen it, ever, if you do have that provax evidence can you provide the link to it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Greg,

I didn't ask you about the name of the AVN.  My question was with regards the claim that "the association also represented some pro-vaccine views".  Please provide an example or three of anything from the association, the AVN, that is pro-vaccine.  I'm sorry but unless your fooling yourself, anyone who has ever contributed anything to the Facebook page or the blog that is pro-vax has either immediately or soon after been banned, and the comments removed.  And please don't tell fibs - there's hundred of examples.  I want to see something from the association - you, Meryl, or a Facebook admin (except of course for Susan Butler who has also been banned for being pro-vax) that is pro-vax, as you claim.

John

[A MacDonald]

Hi John,

I for one have expressed my pro-vaccination views many times.

Give me a vaccine any-day, that does not contain toxins and chemicals and poisons.

And this view has seen the likes of you declaring that all the toxins and chemicals and poisons, are all ok, because you say they are all in minute quantity. And this has led to various debates.

I am a member of the AVN and I am pro-vaccine.

You are pro-vaccine too, but not a member of the AVN.

 

You either choose to ignore certain viewpoints or dismiss them altogether, considering your comment which shows you have not retained what I have previously written.

One thread that comes to mind was regarding a "green-vaccine". You must have overlooked it, among other comments made by various AVN members that I can recall.

This thread will be very shortlived I would think as the basis of your new debate is wrong.

 

You stated "I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination" so you are barking up the wrong tree.

Andrew.

[Katie Brockie]

Greg,

all pro-vaccination comments get censored and deleted from the AVN Facebook page, also on the AVN's blog, most pro-vax comments do not pass moderation. Basically no pro-vaccine views are allowed on any of the AVN's public sites - so I don't see how that will need to change.

Plus, this group (Respectful Debate), is not part of the AVN - or is it?

cheers

Katie

[Greg Beattie]

Katie

Yes, this debate site is an AVN resource. 

I just opened the blog page and picked two posts at random. Click on them (below) and you'll find a multitude of pro-vaccine viewpoints in the comments.... including from you! Harry (above) features prominently. With a little bit of effort I could probably gather hundreds of comments from John Cunningham in the blog discussions. 

http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/12/24/vaccination-does-not-equal-immunisation/

http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/11/30/doctors-are-not-above-question-vaccines-have-not-saved-millions-of-lives/ 

Comments are moderated. The only reason we delete some is they are too foul, derogatory or otherwise offensive.

For you to say basically no pro-vaccine views are allowed on our public sites, when your own views feature there, is a bit beyond belief. 

The Facebook page is the *only* public resource where debate is not invited. It's a friendly site where people of like mind can gather and discuss their experiences, views and ideas, without the threat of confrontation. It's clearly explained on the page. Read it!

You debate here and on the blog sites. The opportunity is virtually unlimited. 

Greg

[Greg Beattie]

"Please provide an example or three of anything from the association, the AVN, that is pro-vaccine."

John

Just so we can get a feel of what you think pro-vaccine means, tell us your thoughts on vaccine package inserts. You know, the marketing paraphernalia that comes in the box. Are they pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine? Or are they, like most information, simply neutral?

And I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Susan Butler being banned. I'm sure you don't either. Sounds intriguing though.  :-)

Greg

[Harry Phillips]

You are pro-vaccine, so what? Do you speak as an official representative of the AVN or are you just a pleb member? By your logic if I paid to be a member of Greenpeace and said I love nuclear power would that mean Greenpeace is ok with nuclear power? No it does not, if you can produce evidence that a person speaking as a representative of the AVN said something ANYTHING that is provax then I will be stunned, I tell you, stunned.

What is a "green" vaccine? Name one single thing that cannot be harmful when in enough quantity.

How do you explain that Jenny McCarthy loves and recommends that everyone gets the number one neurotoxin injected into her face and is able to survive it?

The fact that you do know that it is the dose that makes the poison and choose to ignore that fact speaks volumes about your world view.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[A MacDonald]

Harry,

without explaining John Cunningham's earlier email, to you, he stated  and thus I replied "I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination"

So what you ask and then you go on to other subjects? I suggest you go to the threads already covering your new concerns.

By the way, what is a pleb member? Do you have "pleb" members in any organisation you belong to. Dependent on what your understanding of a "pleb" member is, it may assist others here as to why you seem to have no resepct for a "pleb" member's view and stance. What does a "pleb" do in your organisation? Do they speak, or just ovine in nature?

 

 

Andrew.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[A MacDonald]

John,

so in a very roundabout way, you are saying you were wrong to make such a simplistic statement.

 

You stated "I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination"

 

I will repeat for your benefit - I agree with vaccination, and I am pro-vaccine, and yes, vaccines which contain the pus as they do today, do not fall into my acceptable level, so I am awaiting a "green" vaccine, which does not exist today. Our scientists have not reached that level, as yet.

I am into choice too. One must have a choice to accept vaccines as they are today, or not. And to not be publicly battered for choosing against this medical-intervention.

 

I suppose with Harry talking about botox, and you talking about all formeldehyde being the same, one could equate it to Petrol, which everyone supports, but almost all prefer Unleaded, over Leaded, for every-day usage. It's probably better we stick to Vaccines on this debate thread rather than botox and what I dress in. The debate is whether AVN is pro-vaccination is it not?

So, your statement above and below John, is simply wrong John, and you know it. I have just told you, again.

Andrew.

From: JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au>
To: vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com

Cc: A MacDonald <qldbr...@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

Andrew,

Unfortunately for you you're not on the committee of the AVN, and you have irrational fears of vaccination when mean that you will never support vaccination, as it is in the real world.  Just be careful though, the next time you breathe, drink, dress or do anything in fact, because they all involve toxins, chemical and poisons.  Did you know that your liver is EVEN NOW making formaldehyde!!!!!

Getting back to the AVN, no, they have always been against vaccination, as are you.

John

On Thursday, 14 March 2013 22:26:37 UTC+11, Andrew MacDonald wrote:

Hi John,

I for one have expressed my pro-vaccination views many times.

Give me a vaccine any-day, that does not contain toxins and chemicals and poisons.

And this view has seen the likes of you declaring that all the toxins and chemicals and poisons, are all ok, because you say they are all in minute quantity. And this has led to various debates.

I am a member of the AVN and I am pro-vaccine.

You are pro-vaccine too, but not a member of the AVN.

 

You either choose to ignore certain viewpoints or dismiss them altogether, considering your comment which shows you have not retained what I have previously written.

One thread that comes to mind was regarding a "green-vaccine". You must have overlooked it, among other comments made by various AVN members that I can recall.

This thread will be very shortlived I would think as the basis of your new debate is wrong.

 

You stated "I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination" so you are barking up the wrong tree.

Andrew.

 

 

From: JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au>
To: vaccination-re...@ googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013 10:57 AM
Subject: [vaccination-respectful- debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

Hi Greg,

You were quoted recently in Australian Doctor.  

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

I was wondering if you could tell us all what pro-vaccine views you represent?  I haven't seen one story or comment from anyone within AVN that could be regarded as pro-vaccination.  Maybe you could being by telling us all what pro-vaccine views you hold?

Thanks,

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Katie Brockie]

Greg,

maybe you are not aware of the amount of moderation that happens on the AVN blog. For every one comment of mine that passes moderation, there are at least 3 which don't. None of them are rude, derogatory, contain bad language etc.

There is a whole Facebook page dedicated to the comments which have been censored from the AVN blog - there are literally hundreds of them You can take a look and see that 99.9% of these comments are also not rude or
foul or offensive.

The opportunity is absolutely NOT unlimited. If it truly was, all comments that were not offensive, derogatory, etc, would pass moderation. This is patently not the case.

So - now, can you please tell me where on the AVN website, there is any positive information about vaccines.

thanks

Katie

[Harry Phillips]

So John worded it badly and you jumped on that to mean anybody even tangentially involved with the AVN, now answer me. When has an official representative of the AVN ever made a provax comment or statement?

Pleb, is just an ordinary member, nothing special, no special privileges, it is not an insult, I call myself a pleb all the time.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Harry Phillips]

Greg, once again you fail and fail hard at comprehension those comments are NOT from a representative of the AVN.

Please provide evidence that ANY representative of the AVN has EVER made a provax comment.

Changing names would have no bearing what so ever on the comments you allow on your sites because none of the provax comments are made by AVN representatives,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Andrew,

You brought up toxin, chemicals and the like.  The AVN is anti-vaccine, as they stand today.  your concept of a "green" vaccine is fanciful, a wishful thought, but impractical in that they simply do not exist.  A vaccine without chemicals?  Impossible.  Damn the physical world!  So therefore you are anti-vaccine.  So is Greg.  So is Meryl.  So is the public figure and president of the AVN.

John

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[Katie Brockie]

Andrew - when you say you are pro-vaccine, I am curious.

Do you think that vaccinations have eliminated smallpox?

Do you think that mass vaccination can eliminate polio?

Do you think that it is a good idea to get tetanus vaccinations?

Thanks,

Katie

[Harry Phillips]

People that claim they are provax and they just want a "green" vaccine is the same as people that claim they are pro-nuclear energy as long as there is nil waste.

They have a world view they want to maintain but don't want to look like they have that world view... weird, you are anti-vax just own it.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Greg Beattie]

Katie

About the moderation. There will always be people who don't like what we do. And they will always complain about their messages being rejected at a greater rate than others. I've seen them often complain even when their message *did* make it. The reason - they didn't wait long enough for messages to be moderated.

I've been to sites where it appeared they didn't accept my messages. You just move on if you don't like their policy. We try to be fair. It's not surprising that you, as one of the lead characters in SAVN, think otherwise. 

"So - now, can you please tell me where on the AVN website, there is any positive information about vaccines. "

As with John, I'll refer you to the question of vaccine package inserts. Just to get a feel for how you define 'pro' info as opposed to 'anti' info.

Thanks

Greg

[Greg Beattie]

"No Greg, we're not talking about packaging inserts."

Yes John. I'm asking you about vaccine package inserts. I'm trying to get you to think more about your questions.

"When has the AVN been pro-vax?" (you asked this twice in one message)

I've already made that clear. It's neither pro nor anti. You're just wasting my time now.

And the links. What a sad laugh. Some cranky old man (or woman) obviously has nothing better to do than become *obsessed* with the details of the lives of each and every poster on the AVNs facebook page. Gets really creative. Makes up their own "Days of our lives" and writes about it. Sounds *quite* sick to me. I couldn't read too far, sorry. It's a waste of time. 

Greg

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:41 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

No Greg, we're not talking about packaging inserts.

You tell us the answer to the original post, without any more fancy footwork and non sequuntur.  When has the AVN been pro-vax?  Give us some examples of when an AVN committee member, Facebook admin or blog moderator has said anything remotely pro-vaccination.

Oh, and if you don't know what happened to Susan Butler, have a read of this:

http://reasonablehank.com/2011/10/23/meryl-dorey-is-not-offended-by-antivax-attacks-on-her-friend/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56554004/Meryl-Dorey-Put-Down-the-Keyboard-and-Back-Away-Slowly

Truly wonderful reading of an organisation that you're now the President of.  Not public figure, mind you, just president.  I hope you don't fall to the same fate as poor Susan, but I suspect you won't as only ever so slightly pro-vacciantion persons get banned for life.

So Greg, when has the AVN been pro-vax?

John

 

[Harry Phillips]

Better yet, delete all the anti-vax stuff (that would be the entirety of everything ever put out by the AVN) then put up some real information and facts, that way you get to keep your current name.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Tasha David]

John,

If the AVN is strictly anti vaccine, then it stands to reason that they would tell people not to vaccinate?  Has any representative of the AVN ever told anyone not to vaccinate?

Cheers

Tasha

[Harry Phillips]

Tasha, here is an analogy to help you out:

"If you go through that closed door there is a monster that will rip your guts out, it will then stomp on your head. While you are still alive it will start to use it's burning acid filled saliva to eat you. The acid burns so much that you will scream in agony for weeks on end. I have no evidence for this monster."

Did I tell you stay on this side of the door? No, I just used lies to scare the bejebus out of you so that you never go through the door.

See the parallels to that little story and what the AVN do? Well there is one difference, the AVN never admits they have zero evidence for the claims they are making.

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Not the point.  Greg claims the AVN is pro-vacciantion.  I'm just after an example.  I didn't claim they were anti-vax.  Greg claimed they were pro-vax.  Greg, this might benefit you to answer.

John.

[Tasha David]

So the answer is "no" then?

Maybe if the AVN had ever said that if you vaccinate you will die or be injured, your analogy would be relevant? But they don't, so it isn't.

Scaring the bejebus out of people happens quite regularly on the pro vaccine side and usually not without a good healthy dose of guilt tripping to boot, do you have a problem with this also?  Or is it okay as long as you agree with message being pushed?

Cheers

Tasha

[Katie Brockie]

Greg,
the package inserts are neutral information.

Information like: "Smallpox was eliminated by vaccination" is pro-vax.

Information like "In summary, it is perhaps impossible to know how much, if at all, vaccination influenced the rates of infectious disease. However the claim that it has substantially done so forms the backbone of the whole case for vaccination. Death trends appear to offer no support for this claim, and we have no properly collected incidence data. Without good evidence we’re left with little reason to vaccinate our children or ourselves." is anti-vax.

Please show me ONE example on the AVN website where vaccinations are regarded as a good thing.

thanks

Katie

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,

how about this:

"love them, protect them, never inject them."?

Katie

[Katie Brockie]

Punter can I refer you to this FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rejectedavnblogcomments/

Take a read..... then tell me what you think of the censored comments. Ignore the comments by the posters - just read the censored comments. You'll see that they are 99.9% perfectly acceptable.

So - the AVN blog basically allows a very few pro-vax comments through moderation. They then post anti-vax messages, and censor any followup from the original pro-vaxxers. This is often the case. I have many screen shots.

And Greg - No, it wasn't because sometimes they take a while to get through moderation. They were censored. Deleted.

K

[Katie Brockie]

Sorry - one more thought. Allowing the occasional pro-vax comment through on the AVN blog, does not mean that the AVN are not anti-vaccination.

[Peter McCarthy]

Meryl Dorey et all have publicly stated they don't believe vaccines work. They also insinuate that governments and Big Pharma have a vested financial interest in coercing people into vaccinating. They have further misrepresented vaccines as toxic and poisonous.

How much more anti-vaccination can you get? Just because they won't come out and simply admit they are anti-vaccination is a non-issue and merely semantic (not surprising though, eh Greg?). The "other side of the debate" they talk about is a platform for spreading fear and misinformation of an anti-vaccination nature.

To deny this is simply pathetic.

[Harry Phillips]

The pro-evidence side uses....ummm... what is it called again.... ummmm.... oh that's right, evidence... what does the AVN have? Scare stories, anything else?

Mercury! formaldehyde! autism! microchips! chemtrails! death!!!..... we hear the anti-vaxers cry while providing zero evidence to back up the claims.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Here's someone else's take on Greg and Meryl and the AVN great country tour of NSW

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/muddying-the-water-on-vaccination/story-e6freuy9-1226406328400

Yep - even they thought they were anti-vaccination

John

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,

here are just a few examples of the AVN telling people not to vaccinate:

"Love them, protect them, never inject them" - text on a T shirt for sale on the AVN web site.

"Without good evidence we’re left with little reason to vaccinate our children or ourselves." _ Greg Beattie

"Flu is not the Biggest Danger it’s the Vaccine" - AVN blogJuly 26 2009

(About the flu vax) " I guess the information may filter into the mines and the general community before it gets through to the medical fraternity, but if enough medical journal articles come out demonstrating how incredibly useless this vaccine is, it will eventually filter down. Hopefully before my elderly friend gets her annual shot next year and in time to save my other friends working in aged care from another month of double shifts."  - MD AVN blog.

I can find many many more examples. Now, can you find me one example where someone in AVN admin has said "I think, in this case, vaccination is a good idea."

cheers

K

[Tasha David]

Hi all,

I have just checked out the AVN webpage and what I have found is that there are many links to pages that are very pro vaccination and that recommend that you vaccinate yourself and your child from both Australian and International sites.  Even the AVN webpage recommends that parents talk to their doctors before making a decision to vaccinate their child, isn't this the same advice that the SAVN would also recommend for all parents in regard to vaccination?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001592.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001561.htm

http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips2

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/

“The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc. and Living Wisdom magazine support your right to make free and informed choices regarding your own and your family’s health. This includes decisions about the foods you eat (organic, natural, conventional, genetically-modified, etc), the way in which you parent and teach your children (attachment parenting, extended breastfeeding, homeschooling, etc), and the way in which you treat or prevent disease (vaccination, holistic healthcare, supplements, lifestyle choices, etc).”

“To ensure that you are taking this responsibility seriously and making the best choice for your own personal health situation, we urge you to:

1- Speak with your doctor about these issues. Present him or her with a list of questions you have put together and listen carefully to the answers. Ask for references for where their information is sourced from and make this part of your total research into the subject or subjects at hand.

2- Speak with your natural healthcare provider. Over 60% of Australians rely on information and treatment from within the natural healthcare community which includes (but is not limited to), chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, herbalists, nutritionists, ayurvedic and chinese herbal practitioners, Bowen therapists, etc. Present them with a list of questions you may have and listen carefully to their answers. Ask for references for where their information is sourced from and make this part of your total research into the subject or subjects at hand.

3- Do your own research. You are the experts on your children’s development and on what is happening in their bodies. Doctors and natural healthcare providers are great at advising you of your options – but the ultimate responsibility for the choices you make rests with you so you need to be armed with a broad range of information on these issues. Read books, journal articles, magazines and other information to get as clear a picture as you can of what is on offer and then, and only then, make your decision.”

               

“Mainstream Medical Links

 http://immunise.health.gov.au/

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/handbook-home

http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/services/acir/index.jsp

http://www.tga.gov.au/archive/committees-adrac.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/

http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/

Cheers

Tasha

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,

if that is the case - then why does the AVN exist? If all the info is readily available on mainstream medical sites, what part does the AVN play in it all? Sure, it's important to talk to your doctor about vaccination. However, I am very dubious about advice like this: "Do your own research. You are the experts on your children’s development and on what is happening in their bodies. Doctors and natural healthcare providers are great at advising you of your options – but the ultimate responsibility for the choices you make rests with you so you need to be armed with a broad range of information on these issues."

It's basically saying "ask your doctor for advice, but if you don't like it, ignore it."

And as for the links provided - bravo! But is any of the information provided in the links actually on the AVN website? I think not. Why does the AVN exist? I think it's important for people to make informed choices about their health, but only if the information they are given is accurate. There is no "secret" information that is being kept from us by doctors, researchers, etc. All the info one needs is readily available on those "mainstream" websites.

So I ask again - why does the AVN exist?

Katie

--
ph: 03 4728585
Mob: 021 1881282

[Katie Brockie]

Meryl said this back in 2008. Is it still AVN policy?

“There will come a time – I pray to God that it will happen in my lifetime
– when those who have pushed vaccines upon innocent, helpless babies –
doctors, pharmaceutical companies, government officials – will be proven to
have lied and cheated these instruments of death into our children’s
bloodstream. When that occurs, the outcry will be heard around the world
and there will not be enough hiding places on the globe for these murderers
to hide or enough money to pay for compensation. Of course, it will be too
late for the babies, like this poor child, to be saved. But we will be able
to take satisfaction from the fact that never again will anyone have to be
pushed to poison their child because for once and for all, it will be known
as poison and we will all wonder how it was we fell for the vaccine lie for
as long as we did.”
Meryl Dorey, President, Australian Vaccination Network AVN Yahoo group, 17
Dec 2008, message #36449

[Harry Phillips]

Wait so let me understand your criteria, if they link to a site that has provax info they are provax?

Take a read of my blog post, I link to comments made by Meryl, do you think it is very pro-AVN? It is certainly not the way I intended it.

http://chronicleofthestupid.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/stupid-of-the-day-23rd-october-2012-meryl-dorey/

Link the pages on the AVN so we can get the context of why the links are there.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Tasha David]

Hi Katie,

“if that is the case - then why does the AVN exist? If all the info is readily available on mainstream medical sites, what part does the AVN play in it all?”

First off I never said that all the info is available on mainstream medical sites, and if it was we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.  I was just showing you that there is actually pro vaccination information on the AVN website, which is what you were asking for.

As for what part the AVN plays in this, you have got to think why are more and more parents looking elsewhere for information on vaccination?  To me it is a simple case of supply and demand.  People are not satisfied with the information on vaccination that they are receiving from mainstream medical sources especially when they see their children or themselves being injured by them and are looking for more.  Others are looking at articles and studies that are seeing links between vaccines and various illnesses or looking around and seeing just how sick our children are now and wondering whether there is a better way to keep them healthy.  I believe organisations like the AVN come about because people are looking for them, if they weren’t they would just fade away from lack of support.

“It's basically saying "ask your doctor for advice, but if you don't like it, ignore it."

No I don’t agree, I believe it is saying take all the information you can get especially from your health professionals,  add to it your own knowledge of your family history and the individual characteristics that are unique to your child and make a decision based on all of it.  We are not all the same,  what can be good for one child can be disastrous for another, so all this needs to be considered before making a decision.

Cheers

Tasha

[A MacDonald]

Hi Katie,

Yes, the Mainstream media does provide all the information you deem necessary to follow the religion of vaccination. Yes, one does need faith.

I am sceptical of vaccination.

So, I joined the AVN after they provided some information that I discovered was not provided by Mainstream media.

Will our desire of vaccination, ultimately lead us to natural immune-building skills otherwise overlooked currently? Will vaccination be hi-jacked by a natural therapy regime?

Naturally, we would both hope so.

Andrew.

From: Katie Brockie <katieb...@gmail.com>
To: Vaccination-Respectful Debate <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2013 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
ph: 03 4728585
Mob: 021 1881282

[Moderator]

Why is the AVN important?

I personally believe in vaccination and in the benefits that have been
gained by society as a result of the science that has given us
vaccination.  I, my wife and my children have all been vaccinated, so
why you might ask did I agree to moderate this discussion page.

The answer is simple.  This page and the AVN represent a much more
important principle than any personal opinion or belief I or anyone
else has, no matter how well founded or stupid that belief happens to
be.

The principle in my opinion underscores the advancement of our
civilization in all its forms scientific, social, political, ethical,
and any other facet that you might choose to mention.  What is this
principle that a long life and a keen interest in history has taught
me , to be so all encompassing as to be the most fundamental and most
important principle in a civilized society.

A principle that transcends all others, because without it
individuals, groups and society as a whole are in danger of being
manipulated or bludgeoned into accepting things blindly that should
not be accepted.

The principle is public expression of thought or if you like, freedom
of speech.  It is what ‘I think’ right or wrong sensible or stupid, I
must have a right to express it.  Another way of saying this is to
say, I the individual, we the group, or we as society have a right to
be heard to agree or disagree and discuss the merits of our thoughts.

Remove this and we inevitably return to the dark ages where original
thinkers in science, medicine politics and religion were all
suppressed. Where kings or their equivalent made the rules to suit
themselves and the ordinary person was literally executed if they
dared disagree.

It is in defence of this principle that I became moderator.  It is my
personal belief that provided we have freedom of thought and speech,
the truth and the facts will, given time rise to the top and
individuals and society will be the better for it.

Just as an aside, I think this can and should be done in a civil and
polite manner, respecting the right of the thinker to express his or
her thought, if not the thought itself.

The Moderator

[Tasha David]

As far as I know this is just Meryl expressing her own opinions, much like Peter Bowditch did when he said that parents who do not vaccinate must get sexual gratification from dead babies.  Is this SAVN policy, or is it just an individual expressing their own opinions, you tell me?

[Tasha David]

No Harry, I never said the AVN was pro vax, I just addressed the question about whether there was any pro vax information provided by the AVN. 

I am sorry Harry, I tried to read your blog but I just can't, the things you say in it are just nasty and offensive, Greg has already stated that the AVN is neither pro or anti vaccination they are pro choice, whether you choose to believe this or not is your choice.

As for the links there are several pages on the website that have links, you should check it out for yourself and then you will be able to see for yourself the context.

[Harry Phillips]

So you are aware that context matters but are not willing to provide links to the pages of those links, now why would that be?

Could it be the context would provide the evidence that the AVN is antivax?

[Katie Brockie]

Andrew - in my opinion, talking about the "religion of vaccination" and "faith" is ridiculous and laughable.

How about this for an idea: take a look at medical trials involving thousands of people. Read up on how vaccination actually works. Learn a bit about immunology. Study the history of various diseases.

Tell me, what information did the AVN give you that was not available in the mainstream media? I am very curious.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Katie

[Tasha David]

Well there is only one way to find out then isn't there Harry, go have a look.  The funny thing is that you guys were asking for just one piece of pro vax info from the AVN and I found more than one and now the goal posts keep shifting and shifting.

[Katie Brockie]

I just had a thought. This is partly about the AVN having to change their name to more accurately reflect the aims of the organisation. It's not about compulsory vaccination, or about taking away people's right to choose. At the moment everyone is allowed to choose whether or not they vaccinate their children. I doubt that is ever going to change. So I really don't see what the fuss is about.  It could be called "The pro-vaccine choice network" (although, as there is a choice already, it's a bit lame).

But basically, I don't understand why they don't want to be called the anti-vaccination network. I mean, it's not going to put off new members or anything, is it?

[Tasha David]

This is just my opinion, but why should they accept a label that does not encompass fully who they are and what they stand for, especially when that label is being pushed on to them from people who want to see them gone?  It is like the AVN asking for the SAVN to be renamed the "Compulsory Vaccination Association" because some of their members would like to see vaccination be made compulsory, is that fair to the members who do not believe that? 
The other thing is that "anti vaccination" has a negative connotation in our society, and it is being used to isolate and label people who question vaccination as fringe groups and extremists when all they are are people making their own health choices. 

For example, a couple of days ago there was a segment on anti vaccination on one of the morning shows and they had Tracey Spicer ranting about the AVN mob and how she believes that children who cannot prove that they are vaccinated should not be allowed to go to school.  You say you don't think compulsory vaccination is likely to happen but all it takes are small steps, and you will be surprised just how far things can go when they go unchallenged.

 

On 22 March 2013 12:08, Katie Brockie <katieb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just had a thought. This is partly about the AVN having to change their name to more accurately reflect the aims of the organisation. It's not about compulsory vaccination, or about taking away people's right to choose. At the moment everyone is allowed to choose whether or not they vaccinate their children. I doubt that is ever going to change. So I really don't see what the fuss is about.  It could be called "The pro-vaccine choice network" (although, as there is a choice already, it's a bit lame).

But basically, I don't understand why they don't want to be called the anti-vaccination network. I mean, it's not going to put off new members or anything, is it?

[John Cunningham]

Yes "anti-vaccination" does have negative connotations which is why the AVN is resisting being labelled like that. Personally I think those connotations are well deserved. 

John

[A MacDonald]

Katie,

injecting such pus is ridiculous and laughable. One must be indroctrinated to do so. Have you read an ingredient list? Of course you have, so why do you ask me similar? You do have faith.

 

Learn about immunology you told me. Tell me Katie, is there any possible way mankind can achieve its' goal without drugs? Could mankind survive or exist without the the latest vaccine?  And for me to make more money, which drug company should I invest in?

I consider it an insult to be told by you to learn about immunology, considering the forum we use.

How about you use evidence, to prove your point. Unchallenged evidence.

 

Which disease's history do you wish me to study to convince me to inject so many toxins and chemicals? Would it be Scarlet Fever? Would it be Whooping Cough? What is your point, given the link between the miniscule amounts of toxins and poisons contained in each vaccine, to diseases which have their origin in such toxins? Autism is a disease in most people's mind.

Latest mainstream media reports that autism is genetic. I don't agree with that theory. But it may be that vaccines do eventually change DNA, for the worse rather than the better.

 

You have faith in a theory called herd immunity which science has not proven, yet herd immunity is a tenet for vaccination (but not immunisation).

 

Mainstream media told me there were very few concerns, but the AVN matched concerns I did have, and provided a resource for me to inquire further .... only to lead to this email where you are claiming mainstream media is bluntly correct.

 

Katie, you take a look at other medical trials which may not involve thousands of people. There are trials and results which rebuke your stance.

 

As for information that the AVN has provided to me which has not been in the mainstream media, it is immense. Yesterday I learnt that cheap Chinese sunglasses are carcinogenic. I learnt the difference between a cheap soft frame and a cheap hard frame, in regards to cancer causing effects. A stress test machine, for sunglasses, the only one of its' kind in AU, provided the base for such an education.

 

AU authorities allow dangerous sunglasses to be sold in Australia.

Are you saying that vaccines are as safe as houses? If I told you your sunglasses were bad for you, would you ridicule me? I learnt something that you would not know. The information came from me inquiring of a machine that is unique in Australia, and certainly not spoken of in mainstream media. You simply did not know.

 

The AVN has not said things that are not written elsewhere. It collates info that is perhaps hard to find. It simply provides information. It is made up of people with empathy, not with dog-names such as your typical "new-age-skeptical tags". And it has a variety of forums and blogs where one is given the opportunity to freely discuss. This particular AVN forum is one, which you feel comfortable in.

You may question individuals such as me, but there is no benefit to be gained by arguing.

It is up to you and us all to learn from the information one seeks and is provided with.

 

What type of sunglasses do you feel comfortable in?

I don't think it laughable at all that I question vaccines, but you do.

What is your agenda and why are you so pro-vaccine? Should this be a new debate topic? 

 

You already made your choice, but others are still considering, with ample reason. 

You gripped upon part of my last email, but did not address the other part, which was "Will our desire of vaccination, ultimately lead us to natural immune-building skills otherwise overlooked currently? Will vaccination be hi-jacked by a natural therapy regime? Naturally, we would both hope so."

Was it because you had not considered?

Andrew.

 

 

From: Katie Brockie <katieb...@gmail.com>
To: Vaccination-Respectful Debate <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

[Tasha David]

Well you are entitled to your opinions just like anyone else, but having an opinion shouldn't mean that people that don't agree with them should be forced to comply. 

[A MacDonald]

Talk about a brick wall.

It's as if John Cunningham just does not listen.

The AVN says repeatedly that it is pro-choice and provides information to allow that.

John Cunningham seems to have selective hearing, like a stuck record.

Personally, I think John's thoughts are typical of a trained medical doctor in Australia, and one day his thoughts will be directed elsewhere, by the Authority.

Andrew.

From: Tasha David <tasha...@gmail.com>
To: "vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com" <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013 6:01 PM

Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] The pro-vaccination AVN?

Well you are entitled to your opinions just like anyone else, but having an opinion shouldn't mean that people that don't agree with them should be forced to comply. 

On 23 March 2013 09:05, John Cunningham <jcbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes "anti-vaccination" does have negative connotations which is why the AVN is resisting being labelled like that. Personally I think those connotations are well deserved. 

John

On 23/03/2013, at 8:56, Tasha David <tasha...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is just my opinion, but why should they accept a label that does not encompass fully who they are and what they stand for, especially when that label is being pushed on to them from people who want to see them gone?  It is like the AVN asking for the SAVN to be renamed the "Compulsory Vaccination Association" because some of their members would like to see vaccination be made compulsory, is that fair to the members who do not believe that? 
The other thing is that "anti vaccination" has a negative connotation in our society, and it is being used to isolate and label people who question vaccination as fringe groups and extremists when all they are are people making their own health choices. 

For example, a couple of days ago there was a segment on anti vaccination on one of the morning shows and they had Tracey Spicer ranting about the AVN mob and how she believes that children who cannot prove that they are vaccinated should not be allowed to go to school.  You say you don't think compulsory vaccination is likely to happen but all it takes are small steps, and you will be surprised just how far things can go when they go unchallenged.

 

On 22 March 2013 12:08, Katie Brockie <katieb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just had a thought. This is partly about the AVN having to change their name to more accurately reflect the aims of the organisation. It's not about compulsory vaccination, or about taking away people's right to choose. At the moment everyone is allowed to choose whether or not they vaccinate their children. I doubt that is ever going to change. So I really don't see what the fuss is about.  It could be called "The pro-vaccine choice network" (although, as there is a choice already, it's a bit lame).

But basically, I don't understand why they don't want to be called the anti-vaccination network. I mean, it's not going to put off new members or anything, is it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:vaccination-respectful-debate%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Harry Phillips]

It is not about complying with vaccinations, it is about having a name that is design to deceive people and organisations such as the Australian College of Midwives.

[John Cunningham]

Andrew,

Please try and keep up.  Greg Beattie, preseident of the AVN, claims that the organisation is pro-vaccine.  No argument about being pro-choice.  I'm yet to find an example of the AVN being pro-choice, and neither can Greg.

John

[John Cunningham]

Andrew,

Please try and keep up.  Greg Beattie, President of the AVN, claims that the organisation is pro-vaccine.  No argument about being pro-choice.  I'm yet to find an example of the AVN being pro-vaccine though, and neither can Greg.

John

[John Cunningham]

Yes he did. It was in the newspaper and Greg admitted it. Do you ever think?

John

On 26/03/2013, at 18:53, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

No he doesn't. Do you ever stop lying? 

On Monday, 25 March 2013 11:38:14 UTC+11, JC wrote:

Andrew,

Please try and keep up.  Greg Beattie, President of the AVN, claims that the organisation is pro-vaccine.  No argument about being pro-choice.  I'm yet to find an example of the AVN being pro-vaccine though, and neither can Greg.

John

On 25/03/2013, at 11:25 AM, John Cunningham <jcbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew,

Please try and keep up.  Greg Beattie, preseident of the AVN, claims that the organisation is pro-vaccine.  No argument about being pro-choice.  I'm yet to find an example of the AVN being pro-choice, and neither can Greg.

John

[John Cunningham]

Greg, let me remind you,

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

So is this the first lie we've seen from the new President?  Don't tell me he's made a claim and now cannot back it up with evidence?

John

[Greg Beattie]

No I didn't. I said it is neither pro nor anti. Quote me saying the AVN is pro vaccination. Quote the newspaper. Quote anything! But do it honestly.

Greg

[John Cunningham]

Greg.
OK.
Australian Doctor
13 March 2013
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/critics-weigh-in-as-avn-ponders-new-name

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

See the word "said"?
So I asked the question, a fairly simple one that you've been evading, about when the AVN has ever been pro-vax. Simple, huh? If it's pro-vax, show us when it was - any committee member statement will do. I'm sure Andrew McDonald doesn't count as an official AVN spokesperson after what he's done in the past. So when, Greg, has the AVN expressed a pro-vax viewpoint. We can all see an abundance of anti-vaccine propaganda, both from you personally, Meryl and the AVN, so when has it been pro-vax? If you can't provide any examples, then it must be a fact that the AVN is entirely and purely anti-vaccine, and that your claim "that it doesn't hold any views for or against" is simply untrue.
John

[Harry Phillips]

So please demonstrate a single provax comment you or any official AVN have ever made in the history of the AVN.

1. Allowing members that are pro-evidence does not count as an official stance of the AVN.

2. Allowing pro-evidence comments by other people on AVN blogs is not from an AVN official

3. Having links to pro-evidence sites is not providing information from an AVN official

Please provide a single instance where an AVN official has submitted a comment or blog post that has endorsed the use of vaccines.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Peter McCarthy]

Here's a link to where you've been quoted, Greg.

http://www.rheumatologyupdate.com.au/latest-news/critics-weigh-in-as-avn-ponders-new-name

[Peter McCarthy]

And Greg, your comparison to the Cancer Council of Australia is pretty tasteless. Is there a "pro" side to cancer? Would anyone debate for the benefits of promoting or nurturing cancer?  The CCA supports cancer researchers and cancer survivers and serves in an advisory capacity to government and other medical bodies with a mission to " Lead a cohesive approach to reduce the impact of cancer".

Who does the AVN support in any official capacity? Who does the AVN advise in any official capacity? No one. What you do is offer up negativity, derision and ridicule of vaccination and most modern medicine and actively present interpretations of medical facts designed to confuse people into thinking vaccines do nothing at best, and may even do something harmful at worst.  There's no support. And there's no advise either because none of you are health professionals. 

So, what is making it so hard for you to own up to the bleeding obvious that your mission is to provide the "other side" (read - anti) of the vaccine story?  Is it take you actually want to start officially supporting something?

For instance, do you want to be a support network for people who believe they or their family have been negatively affected by vaccines? Then use that in your name.

Do you want to support people that dispute modern medicine and science and believe illnesses are triggered by unfortunate events in our lives? Then start there.

Do you support people that still wax lyrical about autism and formaldehyde and thiomersyl and toxins and nanobots and lizard overlords? Then find your motivation there.

Or do you support the people who think Big Pharma and Big Gubberment are in cahoots spreading lies about the efficacy of vaccines because it helps their bottom line and they get a kick out of controlling you? Well start with that.

Otherwise, I can't really understand what all the fuss is about. You're an anti-vaccination group that could change its mind one day if a vaccine fell from the heavens that was free of all chemicals, was not developed or distributed by greedy corporations, tyrannical gubberments or heartless, egotistical doctors and scientists and never had even a single side effect.

Own it.

On 29 Mar 2013 12:39, "Greg Beattie" <pcmed...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Greg Beattie]

John

For each of the following tell us whether the second follows logically from the first:

1A - My library carries some Jewish books.

1B - It is a Jewish library.

2A - A Greek family frequents my local beach.

2B - It is a Greek beach.

3A - The Rolling Stones play some country songs.

3B - They are a country band.

4A - The AVN presents some pro vaccination views.

4B - It is pro vaccination.

You are allowed to use Cunningham's Law (see below). I doubt you need permission though.

Greg

Cunningham's Law: Say whatever you like and just keep repeating it.

[Tasha David]

Ok, let's look at this quote from Greg and see what it actually says and not what people have perceived it to say.

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association represents some pro-vaccine views”

what you all are focused on are Greg's words "because the association represents some pro-vaccine views”

What this means is that there are views of people who are in the AVN who are pro vaccine but choose to vaccinate selectively, to take either an anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine stance would isolate members within the group and the AVN represents people with a range of views .  You guys are really grasping at straws here trying to say that Greg said the AVN is pro-vaccine.  Greg has already told you that the AVN is not pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do we really have to keep going with this?

John

[Greg Beattie]

"And Greg, your comparison to the Cancer Council of Australia is pretty tasteless."

Tasteless? I had no idea. Good thing you're here to catch stuff like that. No one else would have. 

"Otherwise, I can't really understand what all the fuss is about."

Ah... you're on to it. Great catch! We think alike after all.  :-)

Greg

[Harry Phillips]

Listed form that article:

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

Now where is the evidence that " the association* represented some pro-vaccine views", just one a single solitary pro-vaccine view will do to satisfy that claim. It has been 16 days since you were asked to substantiate that claim.

There are three options to satisfy the people here asking you for evidence:

1. Admit you lied and the association only ever expressed anti-vax views no matter what the private views the officials hold

2. Show us these co called pro-vaccination views expressed by a representative of the AVN (16 days and counting, I am not holding my breath)

3. Let us know what you actually said and how the article totally misquoted you.

*(not members views, not allowed others to express pro-vax views, not allows members with pro-vax views)

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Greg Beattie]

Harry

Let me say before I answer you that I apologise in advance. You could not possibly have known this because you know next to nothing about me. You speak about my book without having read it. You criticise graphs that you haven't seen. You make up hypothetic experiments and results and demand others explain them, despite admitting you made them up.

And everyone's a 'liar' if they don't immediately respond to your accusatory requests. Clearly you have issues with the basics of discussion. Now you've stuck your neck way out again and asked an example of me representing a pro-vaccine view (or else I'm a 'liar' - right?). And again, you have no knowledge whatsoever of what I have or haven't done. 

Here's an example. Below is a list of quotes. Each was on a separate slide, and presented at each of the public lectures I gave last year. Note very carefully -- each one of these slides was displayed to the audience for a longer period of time (and a greater number of times) than *any* other slide I presented.

Read and tell me you're satisfied. Do you want more? Perhaps you'd like to give me a medal. I rather think you'll simply slink off to another thread and pretend this never happened. That'd be more your style, hey?

Enjoy.

Greg

"No health program has saved as many lives or

spared as many years of productive life as the

United States childhood immunization program,

according to Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., director

of CDC's National Immunization Program.

Orenstein addressed more than 2,000 health

care professionals, scientists and researchers

during the first day of the four-day 31st National

Immunization Conference held here."

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/vaccin1.htm 

"Vaccines developed and manufactured by the

medicines industry have been one of the key

reasons the death rates from infectious

diseases have plummeted in Australia since the

1920s," Medicines Australia chief executive Dr

Brendan Shaw said.

- Adelaide Now Nov 26, 2011

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/

"Vaccination has been the most successful

medical procedure ever introduced. It has

saved more lives than any other intervention,

and it has prevented more disability'."

- New South Wales Public Health Bulletin Vol 8 Nos 8-9 Aug-Sept, 1997

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB97025.pdf

"Nothing has saved more lives than the advent of

widespread immunizations for diseases that

used to ravage mankind."

The Daily Astorian 7th June 2011

http://www.dailyastorian.com/opinion/editorials/not-vaccinating-is-shortsighted/

article_43570288-9135-11e0-bae0-001cc4c002e0.html

"Vaccines have saved millions of human lives,

more than any other medical intervention," said

Founding Board Director Prof. Gregory Poland

of the Mayo Clinic and Editor-in-Chief of the

journal, VACCINE.

Prof Gregory Poland - founding board director of Foundation for Vaccine

Research

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-launch-vaccine-researchfoundation-

123459359.html

"Vaccines are "miracles" that have saved millions

of human lives and will continue to save

millions more in the future.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-launch-vaccine-researchfoundation-

123459359.html

"Before vaccines, whooping cough killed 8,000

children in the United States annually,

diphtheria was a common cause of death

among young people, and polio caused tens of

thousands of cases of paralysis, he pointed out.

Measles resulted in 3,000 to 5,000 deaths, Offit

said."

USA Today http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/story/2011/06/CDCMost-

US-kids-get-recommended-vaccines/48286276/1?csp=34news

"No medical intervention has such an

unambiguous track record of preventing

morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases

than that of vaccines."

- A call to action for the new decade of vaccines

The Lancet, Volume 378, Issue 9788, Pages 298 - 302, 23 July 2011

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-

6736%2811%2960766-6/fulltext

"Since Edward Jenner's breakthrough in 1796,

vaccination has probably saved as many lives

as any other public health innovation, with the

exception perhaps of improvements to

sanitation and water safety."

- The future of immunisation policy, implementation, and financing

The Lancet, Volume 378, Issue 9789, Pages 439 - 448, 30 July 2011

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-

6736%2811%2960406-6/fulltext

“Medically speaking, the good old days aren't

something a physician gets sentimental about,

unless there's a soft spot in his or her heart for

the Middle Ages when small pox wiped out

most of Western Europe; or the nineteenth

century, when typhoid had its way with millions

of children; or after World War I when influenza

practically killed more people than the war

itself. These were terrible diseases we've

conquered thanks to vaccines."

- Huffington Post "Vaccinations: still amazing after all these years" March 2,

2010. Dr Glenn D. Braunstein, the Chairman of the Department of Medicine

at Cedars-Sinai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-d-braunsteinmd/

vaccinations-still-amazin_b_481523.html

Open Statement on Vaccines from

the American Academy of Pediatrics

"We, the undersigned, support immunization as

the safest, most effective way to control and

eradicate infectious diseases. Infectious

diseases were once prevalent in the United

States, inflicting widespread suffering and

death on young and old, rich and poor alike.

Deadly diseases such as smallpox, polio,

diphtheria and measles have, for the most part,

become distant memories. Most of the credit

goes to vaccines, medical miracles that many

take for granted."

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=1420

YAHOO ANSWERS

"How many lives have vaccines saved?"

Best answer - more than any other medical

intervention in history (with the exception of

clean drinking water).

" ... in the first part of the 20th century, more

children died from infections like pertussis and

diphtheria than from all other causes of child

death today. Immunisation has almost wiped

out these diseases and others like measles. But

if immunisation rates go down, children will

again be at risk..."

- Sydney Children's Hospital - Factsheet, Immunisation

http://www.sch.edu.au/health/factsheets/joint/?immunisation.htm

[John Cunningham]

That's OK Tristan, I didn't call him a liar.  you just did though.

How you can go around with a nickname like punter and all it implies is beyond me as well.

John

On 02/04/2013, at 8:26 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just because you never grasped the finer points of 2nd grade English comprehension doesn't make Greg a liar JC.

 

How on earth you (and Harry) can click on "post" without dying of shame is beyond me.

[Harry Phillips]

It is not about the names of the members or their attitudes towards vaccines, it is about the information presented to the world by the AVN representatives, please stop.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Peter McCarthy]

I have no idea what you're asking here Tristan.

On 2 Apr 2013 15:29, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Question Peter:

 

If they called themselves the anti-vaccine network and the government still went after them would you give Greg and Meryl all of your possessions?

 

Or would it be fair to say the whole name thing is just an (extremely feeble) excuse to censor people you don't like?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Peter McCarthy]

You like to say things like this don't you Tristan? "Arguments that demolish yours". I don't think I've had that happen to me on here yet. And certainly not in the context of this thread. Indeed, None of you have even come close to addressing this post or offering any sort of meaningful rebuttal to my suggestions.

But if this kind of dross helps you get to sleep at night then whatever.

On 2 Apr 2013 15:37, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"And Greg, your comparison to the Cancer Council of Australia is pretty tasteless."

 

You always seem to be offended by arguments that demolish yours.

 

"For instance, do you want to be a support network for people who believe they or their family have been negatively affected by vaccines? Then use that in your name.

Do you want to support people that dispute modern medicine and science and believe illnesses are triggered by unfortunate events in our lives? Then start there.

Do you support people that still wax lyrical about autism and formaldehyde and thiomersyl and toxins and nanobots and lizard overlords? Then find your motivation there.

Or do you support the people who think Big Pharma and Big Gubberment are in cahoots spreading lies about the efficacy of vaccines because it helps their bottom line and they get a kick out of controlling you? Well start with that."

I'm not known for my humility but even I have to marvel at the hubris of a guy who thinks it is his right to tell every single organisation in Australia what they can and can't do.

 

On Friday, 29 March 2013 14:19:30 UTC+11, mtp_69_i wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Harry Phillips]

Forget that, I was wrong and last response was pretty lame.

On 02/04/2013 4:42 PM, "Harry Phillips" <ha...@tux.com.au> wrote:

So those represent the offical stance of the AVN or did you put them up there to rebut and present the opposite? Context please.

Just because I put up a slide about Green Peace and their policys then go on to smash their argument to pieces does not make me Pro-Green Peace.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Maybe we should have Greg's law.

When you make a claim and can't back it up, change the subject and make strawman challenges.  
It should possibly be called Meryl's law, or even Viera's law, because sadly you're not the first person to use it.

Greg, your claim is that "the association represents some pro-vaccine views".  Prove it.

John

[John Cunningham]

Tasha,

Greg said that "the association represents some pro-vaccine views".  We're not talking about people who are members of AVN.  We're not talking about the views of some of it's members.  We're talking about the view of the association.  So if the association represents some pro-vaccine views, what are they?  He said it, not me.  Nothing to my mind has ever come from the AVN that could be interpreted as pro-vaccine.  Can you think of anything that might support Greg's claim?

John

[Harry Phillips]

So those represent the offical stance of the AVN or did you put them up there to rebut and present the opposite? Context please.

Just because I put up a slide about Green Peace and their policys then go on to smash their argument to pieces does not make me Pro-Green Peace.

On 2 April 2013 15:42, Greg Beattie <pcmed...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,

an opinion is when you say "I think dark chocolate is much nicer than milk chocolate". No one could or would want to force anyone to comply with it.

But when you say (hypothetically)  "vaccinations are a lot more dangerous than we have been led to believe", that is not an opinion. It is you, stating what you think is a fact, and needs to be backed up with solid evidence.

Or if you're talking about opinions about the re-naming of the AVN, that is not an opinion, it is a legal decision made by lawyers and a judge. You can agree or disagree, but unfortunately, the organisation has to comply.

cheers
K

[Greg Beattie]

And I was wrong too, Harry. About you. Thank you.

Greg

[Katie Brockie]

punter,
what pro-vaccination views does the AVN represent, then? As a lawyer represents her clients, how does the AVN represent pro-vaccine views? I understand that one may be personally anti-vaccine, but will represent pro-vax views, but can you show me any examples? I mean genuine ones, where correct information is given and vaccines are actually encouraged, rather than discouraged.

thanks

K

[Katie Brockie]

Greg - your slides are excellent, I take it all back. I also assume you did not refute the information on any of the slides and that you agree with what they say. yay!!

Katie

[Peter McCarthy]

How does this waffle help your cause, Tristan? Are you saying you're interpreting the word "represent" differently to how regular people are using it?

A lawyer or politician representing a client or constituent(s) serves as their advocate/ambassador/spokesperson/representative. Pick one.

The question is and has been - what pro-vaccination views does the AVN represent. Taken literally or legally the word "represent" still implies the AVN supports some pro-vaccine views.

What are they?

On 3 Apr 2013 09:47, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You and Harry don't know what the definition of any words are.

 

Try looking up a dictionary for the term "represent" - as in a lawyer "represents" his client or a politician "represents" their constituency.

 

Not that it would make any difference to you or Harry anyway because, like I said, you wouldn't understand the explanatory words.

On Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:08:45 UTC+11, JC wrote:

Tasha,

Greg said that "the association represents some pro-vaccine views".  We're not talking about people who are members of AVN.  We're not talking about the views of some of it's members.  We're talking about the view of the association.  So if the association represents some pro-vaccine views, what are they?  He said it, not me.  Nothing to my mind has ever come from the AVN that could be interpreted as pro-vaccine.  Can you think of anything that might support Greg's claim?

John

On 31/03/2013, at 8:18 AM, Tasha David <tasha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, let's look at this quote from Greg and see what it actually says and not what people have perceived it to say.

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association represents some pro-vaccine views”

what you all are focused on are Greg's words "because the association represents some pro-vaccine views”

What this means is that there are views of people who are in the AVN who are pro vaccine but choose to vaccinate selectively, to take either an anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine stance would isolate members within the group and the AVN represents people with a range of views .  You guys are really grasping at straws here trying to say that Greg said the AVN is pro-vaccine.  Greg has already told you that the AVN is not pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do we really have to keep going with this?

On 29 March 2013 22:20, John Cunningham <jcbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg.
OK.
Australian Doctor
13 March 2013
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/critics-weigh-in-as-avn-ponders-new-name

"But AVN president Greg Beattie said the association was not prepared to adopt a name that reflected an anti-vaccination stance, because the association also represented some pro-vaccine views."

See the word "said"?
So I asked the question, a fairly simple one that you've been evading, about when the AVN has ever been pro-vax.  Simple, huh?  If it's pro-vax, show us when it was - any committee member statement will do.  I'm sure Andrew McDonald doesn't count as an official AVN spokesperson after what he's done in the past.  So when, Greg, has the AVN expressed a pro-vax viewpoint.  We can all see an abundance of anti-vaccine propaganda, both from you personally, Meryl and the AVN, so when has it been pro-vax?  If you can't provide any examples, then it must be a fact that the AVN is entirely and purely anti-vaccine, and that your claim "that it doesn't hold any views for or against" is simply untrue.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Katie Brockie]

JC, if you read Greg's slides above, he agrees that vaccinations are "a miracle", "safe" effective" "saved millions of lives", etc etc.

So Greg himself is anti-vaccine and thinks they are dangerous and evil, but as the AVN representative, he is pro-vaccine and thinks they are a fantastic piece of public health.

I hope I've got that right.

K

[Harry Phillips]

Probably because your evidence is always less than stunning, I have yet to see you present evidence or logic that is worth considering.

Why Greg didn't present the information from the slides after the very first post I have no idea. Instead he makes less than intelligent posts that the "AVN doesn't have a mind"... does the HCCC have a mind? Does the OFT? If they don't how could they be attacking the AVN, he knew exactly the meaning and was using weasle words to try and prove his point.

On 4 April 2013 11:49, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I really do find you quite puzzling Harry.

 

You are one of the few skeptics I have ever seen actually admit that they could be wrong (albeit after a long drawn out process) but no matter how often you are humbled you never seem to learn and within moments you are working on your next ill-conceived post.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

As usual, I'd prefer to hear from Greg a direct answer, rather than your opinion of his opinion...

John

On 04/04/2013, at 10:54 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

A lawyer puts forward the position of his/her client. In this way he "represents" them. He doesn't necessarily like their client or believe them but he puts it forward nonetheless.

 

The AVN puts forward arguments for vaccination . The AVN's committee don't necessarily agree with the pro-vax case but it allows its case to be put forward nonetheless. Note that it is the pro-vax view that is put forward not the case of any particular individual. The AVN does not pretend to act as an advocate/ambassador/spokesperson/representative for any one particular person

 

So in this sense the AVN "represents" pro-vax views exactly as I said, exactly as Greg said and exactly as the journo said and no doubt meant. Indeed, you would have to search high and low to find someone with a lower opinion of journalists than I but I suspect that even they would look at this nonsense about what the word "represents" means and think you guys are a bit strange.

[John Cunningham]

Odd huh?  Especially after reading a judges opinion of his testimony as well.

http://humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/1996/dd000080.htm

So when are these great pro-vaccination opinions going to be seen on the AVN blog, the website, or on their facebook page?  When are they going to sing the praises of vaccination from the mountain tops?

Never, I'd say.

Because they never have, and Greg's claim that they represent pro-vaccine views is flawed.

John

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear moderator. I have left out the answer to my rhetorical question.

You're really out of your depth here, Tristan.

[Quote: Tristan]

"The AVN does not pretend to act as an
advocate/ambassador/spokesperson/representative for any one particular
person"

The AVN certainly isn't pretending. It has publicly stated that it exists
to represent the "other side of the debate". Greg, Meryl and the rest of
the AVN have taken it upon themselves to represent all those people who
believe there even is an other side to talk about. Much of this predicated
on a flawed understanding of the idea of "free speech".

As for lawyers. A lawyer represents their clients legal rights. They don't
have to care about their client. They only care about their legal rights.
And in these, I think you'll find, they believe very strongly. So when Greg
et al are "representing" the pro-vax "side" are they doing it because they
believe in it?

On 4 Apr 2013 15:21, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

A lawyer puts forward the position of his/her client. In this way he "represents" them. He doesn't necessarily like their client or believe them but he puts it forward nonetheless.

 

The AVN puts forward arguments for vaccination . The AVN's committee don't necessarily agree with the pro-vax case but it allows its case to be put forward nonetheless. Note that it is the pro-vax view that is put forward not the case of any particular individual. The AVN does not pretend to act as an advocate/ambassador/spokesperson/representative for any one particular person

 

So in this sense the AVN "represents" pro-vax views exactly as I said, exactly as Greg said and exactly as the journo said and no doubt meant. Indeed, you would have to search high and low to find someone with a lower opinion of journalists than I but I suspect that even they would look at this nonsense about what the word "represents" means and think you guys are a bit strange.

 

On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 23:05:54 UTC+11, mtp_69_i wrote:

[Peter McCarthy]

Sorry but I just can't leave this reply of yours alone. It really is shockingly poor.

This bit about lawyers makes it clear that you don't really understand how the legal system works.

As I said, lawyers are not paid to represent their clients as unique individuals. They represent their clients legal rights. They certainly don't represent their clients views. They may, in some cases present a specific view held by their client if it formed a specific and integral part of the legal question at hand. In such a case, the point of presenting their clients view(s) would almost certainly be to help define how/why their clients rights required representation.

So what is it? Do the AVN present the "pro-vax side" because they believe in it? (You never did answer this...). Or do they present it because it helps them to represent their supporters?

Or, are they really not presenting a pro-vaccine side at all but instead are mis-representing statistics to try and convince people that there's a global conspiracy led by gubberments and Big Pharma trying to trick them into believing vaccines save lives when in fact they really don't?

A (dodgy) lawyer might try such a trick. Mis-representing information in such a way as to make their client look better or to exaggerate the gravity of their case. Could this be something that's going on?

So, sorry old mate but as for being a corollary to your statement, I don't see it. And as far as undermining my point goes... well, let me know when you've understood it and we can go from there.

On 8 Apr 2013 15:02, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's true Peter, ever since you schooled me on non-linear feedback mechanisms I do feel regularly outclassed on all matters statistic, mathematics and logic.

 

Still, one can but try.

 

"As for lawyers. A lawyer represents their clients legal rights. They don't
have to care about their client. They only care about their legal rights.
And in these, I think you'll find, they believe very strongly. So when Greg
et al are "representing" the pro-vax "side" are they doing it because they
believe in it?"

I don't get it. How did you not immediately recognise what my rejoinder would be? I mean it is pretty obvious but I will say it anyway: lawyers care about their client's legal rights so they "represent" their views. The AVN cares about and believes in open discourse so it "represents" pro-vax views. So your explanation is an exact corollary to my description and completely undermines your point. But no matter, according to you you have obliterated all opposing arguments so that should give you plenty of solace.

[Peter McCarthy]

And one more thing.

There is a difference between "presenting" publicly available information that shows vaccines save lives and "representing" a pro-vaccination stand point.

The AVN obviously does not represent a pro vaccine stand point. Indeed you, and the AVN collectively, are denialists of the benefits of vaccines.

You represent "the other side of the debate". You may present (and mis-represent) information that shows the benefits of vaccination. But you do not use that information to represent a view that is pro-vaccination.

It's really a very simple point that only requires a modest grasp of the English language.

On 8 Apr 2013 15:02, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's true Peter, ever since you schooled me on non-linear feedback mechanisms I do feel regularly outclassed on all matters statistic, mathematics and logic.

 

Still, one can but try.

 

"As for lawyers. A lawyer represents their clients legal rights. They don't

have to care about their client. They only care about their legal rights.
And in these, I think you'll find, they believe very strongly. So when Greg
et al are "representing" the pro-vax "side" are they doing it because they
believe in it?"

I don't get it. How did you not immediately recognise what my rejoinder would be? I mean it is pretty obvious but I will say it anyway: lawyers care about their client's legal rights so they "represent" their views. The AVN cares about and believes in open discourse so it "represents" pro-vax views. So your explanation is an exact corollary to my description and completely undermines your point. But no matter, according to you you have obliterated all opposing arguments so that should give you plenty of solace.

On Friday, 5 April 2013 17:35:54 UTC+11, mtp_69_i wrote:

[John Cunningham]

So Greg you haven't found any pro-vaccine claims by the AVN committee or admins yet?
John

[Peter McCarthy]

Furthermore, your lawyer analogy fails still further to gain you any traction.

[Quote: Tristan]
" Right. So if a client says "plead not guilty" the lawyer can just say: "Nup. Don't wanna". If the client says "I wasn't holding the candlestick in the library" the lawyer can just say "I'm pretty sure you were but don't worry we will get off on a technicality"...etc etc etc"

And PS - I never said or inferred any of this nonsense...

Lawyers will PRESENT information and testimony provided by their client (and other sources) to assist them in successfully REPRESENTING their clients rights.

Importantly, (and again) this has nothing to do with the lawyer having a specific preference for or against their client's views or testimony. They simply use these pieces of information to assist them in representing their clients legal rights.  Furthermore, lawyers have to act within the bounds of the law and must present any information or view truthfully and accurately. Any inability or unwillingness to do this can compromise their ability to faithfully represent their clients rights and may influence what rights their client is entitled to.

So, while the AVN may present pro-vaccination information and views. They do not use them to represent a pro-vaccination standpoint. Indeed, I contend that by mis-representing these views AND indeed by arguing against them, the AVN specifically tries to represent an anti-vaccination standpoint.

By mis-using information and views that come in support of vaccination, I believe the AVN often willfully tries to mislead people seeking information about the effectiveness or safety of vaccines, purely to support the anti-vaccination viewpoint they represent.

If this was in fact a court of law, and the AVN were representing the anti-vaccination crowd, one might hold the AVN in contempt of logic for their conduct and cease to believe anything they say.

I know I do.

On 9 Apr 2013 16:54, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

“There is a difference between "presenting" publicly available information that shows vaccines save lives and "representing" a pro-vaccination stand point.

The AVN obviously does not represent a pro vaccine stand point. Indeed you, and the AVN collectively, are denialists of the benefits of vaccines.

You represent "the other side of the debate". You may present (and mis-represent) information that shows the benefits of vaccination. But you do not use that information to represent a view that is pro-vaccination.”

All of this might make a modicum of sense except for the fact that many of the comments that the AVN allows are those written by people who are pro-vax. But it does, hence both of your posts are mind-numbingly ridiculous.

“It's really a very simple point that only requires a modest grasp of the English language.”

No. It requires you to realise that some of your own and JC’s etc posts appear on these pages and on the AVN blog. YOU are putting forth the pro-vax case. I am not suggesting that you do it at all coherently or convincingly to anybody who isn’t already part of the choir but you are representing it nonetheless. The AVN allows your views and in so doing represents arguments and positions which it more than likely doesn’t agree with. Don’t get me wrong, the fact that your arguments are so poor and ours so good certainly provide a stark contrast and, hence, could be seen to be used to promote our views – but do you really want to admit this?

The only way your argument about “representation” vs “presentation” could make any sense is if you admit that your arguments are just that bad and that you are your own strawmen. Is this what you are saying Peter? That Harry, JC, Katie and yourself are just made up by Meryl and Greg to make the pro-vax side look bad? Well, it would explain a lot...

I mean, it would certainly help to explain how someone could be so foolish as to write this:

"As I said, lawyers are not paid to represent their clients as unique individuals. They represent their clients legal rights. They certainly don't represent their clients views."

Right. So if a client says "plead not guilty" the lawyer can just say: "Nup. Don't wanna". If the client says "I wasn't holding the candlestick in the library" the lawyer can just say "I'm pretty sure you were but don't worry we will get off on a technicality". If the client says "please don't let me get executed I will accept any other plea" the lawyer can just say "Bad luck, it says right here in the laws that you deserve the chair so that is what I am going to tell the judge".

Greg, I really hope that the AVN's lawyers are significantly better than the ones Peter puts his faith in.

[Peter McCarthy]

[Quote: Tristan]

" All of this might make a modicum of sense except for the fact that many of the comments that the AVN allows are those written by people who are pro-vax"

You really have a hard time understanding what I'm saying don't you? Please reread this statement:

[Quote: me]

" There is a difference between "presenting" publicly available information that shows vaccines save lives and "representing" a pro-vaccination stand point."

The same applies when "presenting" comments from people that are in fact pro-vaccination. It is irrelevant that you "allow" their posts on here (FYI my understanding is the moderation here is supposed to be non-biased regarding vaccination or the AVN but please correct me if this is untrue). The reason it's irrelevant is that the AVN and its members argue against those pro-vax views and information and in doing so REPRESENT THE OPPOSITE VIEW.

Your inability to understanding the difference between "presenting" something and "representing" something is the only mind numbingly ridiculous thing I can see in this.

On 9 Apr 2013 16:54, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

“There is a difference between "presenting" publicly available information that shows vaccines save lives and "representing" a pro-vaccination stand point.

The AVN obviously does not represent a pro vaccine stand point. Indeed you, and the AVN collectively, are denialists of the benefits of vaccines.

You represent "the other side of the debate". You may present (and mis-represent) information that shows the benefits of vaccination. But you do not use that information to represent a view that is pro-vaccination.”

All of this might make a modicum of sense except for the fact that many of the comments that the AVN allows are those written by people who are pro-vax. But it does, hence both of your posts are mind-numbingly ridiculous.

“It's really a very simple point that only requires a modest grasp of the English language.”

No. It requires you to realise that some of your own and JC’s etc posts appear on these pages and on the AVN blog. YOU are putting forth the pro-vax case. I am not suggesting that you do it at all coherently or convincingly to anybody who isn’t already part of the choir but you are representing it nonetheless. The AVN allows your views and in so doing represents arguments and positions which it more than likely doesn’t agree with. Don’t get me wrong, the fact that your arguments are so poor and ours so good certainly provide a stark contrast and, hence, could be seen to be used to promote our views – but do you really want to admit this?

The only way your argument about “representation” vs “presentation” could make any sense is if you admit that your arguments are just that bad and that you are your own strawmen. Is this what you are saying Peter? That Harry, JC, Katie and yourself are just made up by Meryl and Greg to make the pro-vax side look bad? Well, it would explain a lot...

I mean, it would certainly help to explain how someone could be so foolish as to write this:

"As I said, lawyers are not paid to represent their clients as unique individuals. They represent their clients legal rights. They certainly don't represent their clients views."

Right. So if a client says "plead not guilty" the lawyer can just say: "Nup. Don't wanna". If the client says "I wasn't holding the candlestick in the library" the lawyer can just say "I'm pretty sure you were but don't worry we will get off on a technicality". If the client says "please don't let me get executed I will accept any other plea" the lawyer can just say "Bad luck, it says right here in the laws that you deserve the chair so that is what I am going to tell the judge".

Greg, I really hope that the AVN's lawyers are significantly better than the ones Peter puts his faith in.

On Monday, 8 April 2013 18:07:56 UTC+10, mtp_69_i wrote:

[Greg Beattie]

"Lawyers will PRESENT information and testimony provided by their client (and other sources) to assist them in successfully REPRESENTING their clients rights."

Peter

I think you have these the wrong way around. Clients present info and testimony to their lawyer who *re-presents* it to the court. However the lawyer 'presents' the client's legal position.

Either way it doesn't really matter. Your only concern is with my *opinion* regarding vaccines. But my opinion is as worthless as yours. I'm one of 7-odd billion people. It's the *info* that's important to AVN members. 

I was asked to show where I have ever *re-presented* pro vaccination views. And I showed this beyond a shadow of doubt. I re-presented the viewpoints of some of the most influential spokespersons in the world. End of story.

If you think it's all invalid because I went on to say I wasn't convinced of those viewpoints, and why, you're clutching at straws. 

Similarly if we don't find *your* arguments convincing then you need to work on them. Don't take it personally. Just work on them. This is not a sheep herd where everyone just wants to hear the viewpoint of a doctor and then go home satisfied. We're interested in discussing the info and evidence. Don't be upset if some say they're not convinced. There's no need to say "well you must be anti vaccination". They're just not convinced. 

AVN itself is just a forum. Think of it as a table. Just a place where all the info can be laid down. As I said earlier, it doesn't have a mind. 

We focus on presenting info from the 'other' side because it's missing. Unfortunately our medical system has been more interested in dispersing the good looking stuff than it has the not-so-good looking. But the not-so-good looking is just as important.

To use an analogy: if a motor magazine pointed out the negative features of the latest Toyota model would that make them anti Toyota? Their article may also point out the purported features (as reported by Toyota: the equivalent of re-presenting the pro side) but the fact that it also presents the not-so-good points... does that make it anti Toyota in your mind? What if the article also questions some of the good points, and stacks them up against other models? Would that make the magazine a rabid anti Toyota loony?

No, of course not. But with vaccination we're dealing with a special kind of reaction, aren't we.

You had it all worked out earlier when you said you couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

Hi Greg,

I have to ask, why did you suddenly include a hyphen in the spelling of represent?  Is it because you know there is an obvious difference between the meaning of the words "present" and "represent".  Is it because you understand that presenting something is (by and large) something you can do while remaining neutral about what is presented.  BUT to represent something involves assuming the responsibility of being a proxy, delegate or embodiment for the person, place or thing being represented? (and to "re-present" something is just a silly semantic way of saying you showed something that other people have shown before you)

No one asked if you ever "re-presented" information that shows how important vaccines have been in reducing mortality and morbidity associated with VPDs.  They wanted to see evidence of you or anyone in the AVN "representing" a pro-vaccination standpoint.  It's really very very simple.

It is amusing though that you'd say this

[Quote: Greg]

"But my opinion is as worthless as yours. I'm one of 7-odd billion people. It's the *info* that's important to AVN members."

and then follow it up with a statement such as this

[Quote: Greg]
"If you think it's all invalid because I went on to say I wasn't convinced of those viewpoints, and why, you're clutching at straws. "

I'm assuming that *info* is the same thing as "information" but please correct me if I'm wrong. (what is with the *...*?) 

If the AVN members only cared about the info, then why even put in your two bobs?  It's because you're anti-vaccination, isn't it?  And not just that, but by being involved with a group like the AVN, you want to go further and convince others that governments and pharmaceutical companies are wrong about how effective vaccines are.  Right?

So sure, we all know you have presented information that shows the effectiveness of vaccines.  No worries, the problem is that then you put in your own opinion on it and turn it around to represent (ie you use the information and your opinions of it as a means of expressing) an anti-vaccination standpoint.

Again, very very simple.

As for car magazines.  If a car magazine constantly harped on about faults with a particular vehicle or manufacturer that were not observed by the majority of the automotive community, then yes, they probably would be seen as being anti that particular product.  Particularly if they did it despite overwhelming evidence that their diagnosis of the faults was wrong.

--

[Peter McCarthy]

I'm just going to deal with this fairly quickly Tristan because I think you're starting to see where you've gone wrong.

[Quote: Tristan]
"I am going to let you in on a little secret Peter. Not every industry is as protected and mollycoddled by the government as the medical industry is and, hence, not every practitioner in those industries can afford to treat their customers with the contempt that is all too common amongst medical practitioners."

I'm sensing a lot of anger here.  Not sure what this really relating to in the context of this thread though...

[Quote: Tristan]
"One more secret Peter. You're not god. I know that when you study medicine you are told over and over that you are but that is simply not the case and, despite your extreme preciousness, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they are liars."

More anger?  I'm glad you know all that stuff about studying medicine but I'm not sure how this is relevant either.

[Quote: Tristan]

"an online dictionary meaning for the word represent"

Thanks for that.  The full description for the meaning of represent can be found here http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/represent  but this will do for now.

What you can immediately see (even from your posting of the meaning of represent), when we combine this new found understanding of what represent means, with Greg's last reply, is that the AVN is anti-vaccination.  I'll show you.

[Quote: Greg]

"I re-presented the viewpoints of some of the most influential spokespersons in the world. End of story.

If you think it's all invalid because I went on to say I wasn't convinced of those viewpoints, and why, you're clutching at straws. "

See?  Even Greg is admitting it now.  He showed information that is publicly available and has been shown before (re-presented) information that shows how effective vaccines have been.  THEN he went on to say how he wasn't convinced of it.  He did this as an official and authorised delegate, proxy, representative, spokesperson, agent of the AVN.  As such, he REPRESENTED the AVNs standpoint on the information he showed again because it's publicly available and has been shown before (re-presented).  And, as it turns out, the viewpoint he represented was, simply put, anti-vaccination.

As for this

[Quote: Tristan]
"How long can you keep this up Peter? I have all the time in the world by the way and you are on a hiding to nothing here. Every non-fool who read that article would have understood what Greg meant..."

I'm sorry you're so upset by this whole thing, but I did warn you you were out of your depth.  Why don't we just leave this here now.  I think Greg has given us enough feedback to refute any idea that the AVN is pro-vaccination or has ever supported a pro-vaccination standpoint.

On 10 April 2013 09:02, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon you should write ads for law firms.

 

Smith and Doe lawyers: "Go and represent yourselves you lazy bums!"

 

Bloggs and sons: "We don't care about people, just words on a paper!"

 

Citizen and Sixpack barristers: "We know the law - you shut your mouths!"

 

Joe and Jane solicitors: "At our firm, your opinions and wellbeing are worthless!"

 

I am going to let you in on a little secret Peter. Not every industry is as protected and mollycoddled by the government as the medical industry is and, hence, not every practitioner in those industries can afford to treat their customers with the contempt that is all too common amongst medical practitioners.

 

"Indeed, I contend that by mis-representing these views AND indeed by arguing against them, the AVN specifically tries to represent an anti-vaccination standpoint."

 

One more secret Peter. You're not god. I know that when you study medicine you are told over and over that you are but that is simply not the case and, despite your extreme preciousness, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they are liars.

 

"Your inability to understanding the difference between "presenting" something and "representing" something is the only mind numbingly ridiculous thing I can see in this."

Representation (from Oxford):

noun

"1. The action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented

2. The description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way ."

Amongst the synonyms (synonym.com) are : present, describe, depict, lay out, verbalize

From Mcmillan "to express the views and opinions of a group of people"

How long can you keep this up Peter? I have all the time in the world by the way and you are on a hiding to nothing here. Every non-fool who read that article would have understood what Greg meant which was that whilst the AVN board members themselves may not want to wax lyrical about the wonders of vaccines they have stuff on their websites which was written with the intention to encourage people to vaccinate and interested readers could decide for themselves which arguments were the more persuasive. Pretty damn simple really.

[Greg Beattie]

Ok Peter

About the hyphen, I was trying to point out where the word came from. If I were speaking in person I would emphasise the 're'. But I was writing, so I used a hyphen for clarity. The word 'represent' came from 're-present' or present again. And using *....* around a word is similar. I use it for emphasis. I thought it was reasonably common, sorry. I used to use capitals but some people think it means you're yelling.

Now let's have a look at your position here.

Greg

Represent = re-present, or present again.

Peter

Represent = stand for, believe in or 'own' (am I on the right track?)

And therein lies the reason for all these posts. You think that by using the word I was claiming to be supporting the view. Now I acknowledge that 'represent' can have an extended meaning, such as when we say Peter represented Australia at the bullshit bingo finals. Of course it doesn't mean he took Australia with him to the finals. It means he went in place of Australia as its representative. He actually presented as *the* (there's that emphasis again) guy that Australia wanted to send in place of the whole country.  

Now the question is: did I mean *that* (emphasis again) when I said the AVN represented both pro and anti views? That the AVN was the ambassador for both? Well... no, I didn't. That would be crazy.

So what did I mean? Simple.... I meant "here are some viewpoints, word for word, from prominent people. Those people aren't here so I will present them".

People hold all sorts of viewpoints. The AVN doesn't claim to represent (in the sense you are thinking) any of them, pro or anti. But it does represent (present again) many of them for the purpose of discussion.

In summary: yes the word 'represent' can have a slightly extended meaning, but that doesn't mean it loses its basic meaning.

"If the AVN members only cared about the info, then why even put in your two bobs?"

Who said I put in my two bobs? I quoted other people's two bobs... then I followed with a discussion of the info relating to it. You need to clarify the difference between information and opinion. The quotes I used were opinions (or viewpoints): not info. My discussion dealt with the info those viewpoints were presumably drawn from. So, in short, we're not talking about my two bobs. We're talking about yours, and those of people like you.

That's why this:

 

"So sure, we all know you have presented information that shows the effectiveness of vaccines.  No worries, the problem is that then you put in your own opinion on it and turn it around to represent (ie you use the information and your opinions of it as a means of expressing) an anti-vaccination standpoint."

...is not applicable. I don't believe I've ever presented info that *shows* the effectiveness of vaccines. And those quotes certainly didn't. Some info is framed in such a way that it appears to offer support. And it may indeed do so. That's for each of us to decide after informing ourselves.

Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear Moderator,  I have again addressed the content of this reply to reflect a still more respectful debating style

Jeez Greg, I'm not sure you're even keeping up with your own arguments, let
alone mine.  And Tristan seems to have lost the point completely.  Let's
juxtapose a couple of your comments, one from this latest reply and one
from the reply previous.

[Quote: Greg - "in his most recent post"]

"Who said I put in my two bobs? I quoted other people's two bobs... then I
followed with a discussion of the info relating to it. You need to clarify
the difference between information and opinion."

[Quote: Greg - "in his post previous to this one"]

"I was asked to show where I have ever *re-presented* pro vaccination
views. And I showed this beyond a shadow of doubt. I re-presented the
viewpoints of some of the most influential spokespersons in the world. End
of story.

If you think it's all invalid because I went on to say I wasn't convinced
of those viewpoints, and why, you're clutching at straws. "

You yourself stated you went on to say you weren't convinced of them.
This is called having an opinion on the information or consensus you
presented.  Very very simple stuff Greg.

[Quote: Greg]

"People hold all sorts of viewpoints. The AVN doesn't claim to represent
(in the sense you are thinking) any of them, pro or anti. But it does
represent (present again) many of them for the purpose of discussion."

With statements like this, it's reassuring to me that actions speak louder
than words.  Anyone that's ever spent any time over at the AVN facebook
page knows how completely full of balderdash this statement is.

Please note  -  my original reply to your post, Greg, included a number of examples here to illustrate why
this statement of yours is patently untrue. However, describing the unfortunate
features of the AVN's anti-vaccine behaviour from other forums (Facebook
 etc) is apparently not tolerated here. Regardless, I think we are
probably all aware of the behaviour I'm alluding to.

With this behaviour in mind, I'd like to impress upon you the fact that you shouldn't think you can make such demonstrably untrue statements and not get called out on them.  And while you likely won't admit it, your unfortunate backpedaling to a position where this was all just a misunderstanding over the use of the word represent, compounded by your (demonstrably false) assertions that really the AVN doesn't have any opinions at all, is evidence enough for me that my arguments about the AVNs standpoint on vaccination have been clear and correct throughout this thread.

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear Moderator, I have also revisited this post to try and make it fit within the guidelines of respectful debate

[Quote: Tristan]

"No. He gave his opinion."

I'm glad you could see that.  Greg seems to be backpedaling on this one but with your strong and strident position, maybe he'll recover his conviction.

(see Greg's comment here... [Quote: Greg] - Who said I put in my two bobs? I quoted other people's two bobs... then I followed with a discussion of the info relating to it. You need to clarify the difference between information and opinion. The quotes I used were opinions (or viewpoints): not info. My discussion dealt with the info those viewpoints were presumably drawn from. So, in short, we're not talking about my two bobs. We're talking about yours, and those of people like you.).

[Quote: Tristan]

"When he writes that opinion into the AVN’s constitution and says that all members of the AVN must adhere to it then feel free to get back to us. "

What, you mean he needs to write it into a statement like the one found on the AVNs about page? Link --> https://www.facebook.com/avn.living.wisdom/info

Cliffs Notes
We support people that have a beef with vaccination.  If you don't like that then shut up, you're not wanted here.

It's all already there Tristan.  You know it is.  Greg verbalised his opinions under the umbrella of this "constitution" or whatever you want to call it.

And finally

[Quote: Tristan]

"I mean what do you say about this statement of his? "The AVN has never presented a pro-vaccination statement, comment, or blog entry.

Note how he used the word "presented" not "represented".

Why do I get the feeling you won't be admonishing him too harshly though? Regardless, sorry Peter, but JC just let the cat out of the bag. "

You really want to know what I think?  Okay then.  I think JC is a lot smarter than you.  JC saw Greg's reply about how he re-presented stuff and realised that Greg was up to his old tricks of getting semantic about everything. Something you apparently missed. As such, he rephrased his statement in a way that semantic Greg might better understand.

"The AVN has never presented (ie for the first time, ie their own) a pro-vaccination statement, comment, or blog entry"

You see?  It's a play on the word re-present that Greg introduced

[despite the facts that a.) it was completely incongruous to the context of the discussion AND b.) nobody was debating whether the AVN had previously shown information that many of us regard as demonstrating how vaccination saves lives]

to defend his words and actions as an AVN representative.  I'll help you, the statement should sound like this (below) in your head...

The AVN has never made it's own pro-vaccination statement or comment.  Period.

Now Tristan, Greg has made it clear he now sees I am right about what represent means, but rather than agree that the AVN is anti-vaccination, he's backpedaling and trying to paint the AVN as a group of harmless fence-sitters that welcome all views on vaccination.  Unfortunately for you, you've invested a lot of energy in trying to prop him up throughout this thread.  However, having come up with nothing, and against the backdrop of Greg's own admissions, the best you can muster is outbursts like "God-complex!" and "your brilliant detective work!"

It's time to chalk this one up to experience, mate.


On 14 April 2013 08:48, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> “More anger? I'm glad you know all that stuff about studying medicine but
> I'm not sure how this is relevant either.”
>
>
> Can I give you a hint Peter? If you want to go for *detached nonchalance* it helps if you don’t have a history of getting righteously indignant when people mention such things as “Cancer Council”.
>
>  
> And it was particularly relevant. Indeed you did the same thing again in your response to Greg. You assumed that all arguments that run contrary to your opinions are* necessarily* dishonest. That is God-complex thinking.
> But if you have another term for it then I am all ears.
>
> “See? Even Greg is admitting it now. He *showed information that is publicly available and has been shown before* (re-presented) information that shows how effective vaccines have been. THEN he went on to say how *he wasn't convinced of it*. He did this as an official and authorised delegate, proxy, representative, spokesperson, agent of the AVN.”
>
> Greg, what car were you driving when you were acting as an “official and authorised delegate, proxy, representative, spokesperson, agent of the AVN”? I would love to know what the official car of the AVN is as presumably all members must drive the same right? And could you tell me what brand of projector you used for the slides? I presume all members are only permitted to use that brand of electronics right?
>
> Alternatively, Peter is clutching at straws...
>
> But I do have to admit though Peter. You really are some sort of super-sleuth aren’t you? Fancy working out that Greg has a jaundiced view of vaccines! I never saw that coming. I guess it sometimes is the person you least suspect.
>
> “As such, he REPRESENTED the AVNs standpoint on the information he *showed again because it's publicly available and has been shown before *(re-presented). And, as it turns out, the viewpoint he represented was, simply put,
> anti-vaccination.”
>
> No. He gave his opinion. When he writes that opinion into the AVN’s constitution and says that all members of the AVN must adhere to it then feel free to get back to us.
>
> You see Peter, while I wouldn’t *trust* Greg on this issue and I’m sure he wouldn’t want me to, I still value his opinion. He is clearly a profound independent thinker and very principled so I would be interested in his opinion on a great many things. I can't say I am interested in your opinions so much, but by virtue of the fact that they represent the hegemony I feel compelled to deal with them all the same.
>
> So I’m glad for his opinions, but they aren’t gospel and they aren’t the official position of the AVN because it doesn’t have one on whether people should be vaccinating or not.
>
> But did you really think that your “discovery” was some sort of a revelation Peter? That Greg and Meryl regularly put questions and facts up that may encourage others to pause and consider whether vaccines are a good idea and we are all supposed to sit here gasping at your brilliant detective work?
>
> We just go back to the beginning (which should have been the end). The AVN has nothing in its constitution saying that people shouldn’t vaccinate. Many members of the AVN do vaccinate. What more do you want?
>  
> “I think Greg has given us enough feedback to refute any idea that the AVN is pro-vaccination or has ever supported a pro-vaccination standpoint.”
>
> And there you were trying to teach me about English comprehension. JC claimed that Greg said the AVN were pro-vaccination, but Greg never said such a thing.
>
> I mean what do you say about this statement of his? "The AVN has never presented a pro-vaccination statement, comment, or blog entry. "
>
> Note how he used the word "presented" not "represented".
>
> Why do I get the feeling you won't be admonishing him too harshly though?
> Regardless, sorry Peter, but JC just let the cat out of the bag.

[Greg Beattie]

Peter

You said I presented information showing vaccines were good and then gave a contrary opinion. I corrected you by pointing out that it was the other way around. I first presented *opinions* and then followed with the information they were presumably drawn from. The fact that I then went on to say "that's why I'm not personally convinced" is immaterial. And the fact that you're hanging your hat on it is unbelievably desperate. There's only so much time we can waste on this.

Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present. And as I further pointed out, it's really a very simple point.

I note you still haven't addressed the real question though. We've seen now your admission to putting in your own opinion which denies the effectiveness of vaccinations. But do you have any examples of where you (or any AVN members) have made a pro-vaccination comment? Can you present any evidence to support your notion that the AVN is balanced in it's views of vaccination?

[Greg Beattie]

"As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present."

Peter

Inspecting the evidence for their claims and saying that I'm not convinced is NOT putting an anti-vaccination spin on it. Except in the mind of someone with a desperate agenda to paint me as a villain.

If you said you were made of green cheese and the evidence said you weren't, surely I could say "I'm not convinced" without you claiming I was anti-cheese, anti-you, or anti anything else. Get your head around it Peter. You're wasting everybody's time.

Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

[Quote: moderator]
…please go back through it, take out the duplication and shorten the list of repeat comments used.

Sorry for this, the previous posts remain with the reply (like an email) and the only reason they get longer is because everyone posting in this thread keeps them in their replies. I will try to remember the exclude them in future.

Tristan,

It's cute that you'd try and pass off my reply to you as obfuscation and in the same breath completely avoid the point of it by waffling on about Harry and graphs and fantasy (something you seem to have a peculiarly strong affinity for).

And as far as changing quotes goes, can you provide an example? I most certainly did not deliberately change any quotes - that's why I call them quotes and am careful to show where I am paraphrasing.

Or is this yet another distraction (like the bit about Harry and graphs) to avoid dealing with the reality that you're out of things to actually argue and can't produce a single example of where anyone from the AVN has ever made/presented/represented a pro-vaccination comment of their own in any shape or form?

Feel free to keep it simple but if you're going to answer in the negative, then I hope you've got an example of a pro-vax opinion from the AVN. Otherwise, I think we all know who's right in this little debate.

[John Cunningham]

Ahhh I see Greg, so you still have no AVN pro-vaccine statements to support your claim.  Thanks for the clarification.

John

On 19/04/2013, at 9:20 AM, Greg Beattie <pcmed...@gmail.com> wrote:

"As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present."

Peter

Inspecting the evidence for their claims and saying that I'm not convinced is NOT putting an anti-vaccination spin on it. Except in the mind of someone with a desperate agenda to paint me as a villain.

If you said you were made of green cheese and the evidence said you weren't, surely I could say "I'm not convinced" without you claiming I was anti-cheese, anti-you, or anti anything else. Get your head around it Peter. You're wasting everybody's time.

Greg

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Peter McCarthy <drpjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present. And as I further pointed out, it's really a very simple point.

I note you still haven't addressed the real question though. We've seen now your admission to putting in your own opinion which denies the effectiveness of vaccinations. But do you have any examples of where you (or any AVN members) have made a pro-vaccination comment? Can you present any evidence to support your notion that the AVN is balanced in it's views of vaccination?

[Peter McCarthy]

Greg, your denial of vaccine effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity is a cornerstone of your anti-vaccination stance.

It's got nothing to do with you being a villain. It has everything to do with your role as a representative of an anti-vaccination lobby group.

On 19 Apr 2013 15:59, "Greg Beattie" <pcmed...@gmail.com> wrote:

"As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present."

Peter

Inspecting the evidence for their claims and saying that I'm not convinced is NOT putting an anti-vaccination spin on it. Except in the mind of someone with a desperate agenda to paint me as a villain.

If you said you were made of green cheese and the evidence said you weren't, surely I could say "I'm not convinced" without you claiming I was anti-cheese, anti-you, or anti anything else. Get your head around it Peter. You're wasting everybody's time.

Greg

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Peter McCarthy <drpjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I showed from your own quotes, you are the one that admitted to putting their own anti-vaccination spin on the information present. And as I further pointed out, it's really a very simple point.

I note you still haven't addressed the real question though. We've seen now your admission to putting in your own opinion which denies the effectiveness of vaccinations. But do you have any examples of where you (or any AVN members) have made a pro-vaccination comment? Can you present any evidence to support your notion that the AVN is balanced in it's views of vaccination?

--

[Katie Brockie]

If I joined the AVN, with my pro-vaccination views, would I be fairly represented? If so, how?
thanks

Katie