Another question for Meryl

[JC]

Hi Meryl,

I read somewhere (http://avn.org.au/vaccination-information/dtp/meryl/) recently that there was a new strain of pertussis in circulation, that was "causing more serious symptoms and leading to the first deaths in children in over 10 years".  That means, I guess, that there hadn't been any pertussis deaths of children in the past ten years (give or take - I think this was from 2009).  Would you like to make a comment now, or would you like me to demonstrate how wrong that is?  Surely you have data to back this up, rather than quoting from the Northern Star (12 Mar 2009)?  Surely you would remember having being told previously that this was incorrect, and surely you would remember apologising for the mistake before (15 Jul 2011, to Kathy McGrath)?

Just here to debate... maybe i'm wrong.

John

[JC]

Gosh Meryl,

I just had a chance to read a little tome from the Supreme Court.  It appears that both sides of the debate there agreed that the AVN was a health service provider... 

"The provision of information about vaccination is a health education service. It is common ground, and I accept, that the plaintiff is a “health service provider” within the meaning of s 4 of the Act since it provides “health education services”."

I accept that you've had previous difficulties in reading court transcripts, or at least reporting them accurately, but would you mind awfully if you confirmed, once and for all, that even the Supreme Court of NSW considers you to be a health service provider?  It's irrelevant if you do to not, as the Court has determined that you and your organisation is, but you seem to be still a little confused about it, as seen in a "tweet" from today...

Vaccination Network ‏ @nocompulsoryvac

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 
• · Open

@skepticalskotty Not a health care provider - health educator. Learn to read.

Nice respectable language there, by the way, but please try and report court decisions accurately in the future.

All the best,

John

[A MacDonald]

Gosh John,

Meryl won the AVN's case against the HCCC in the Supreme Court.

 

The HCCC admitted (finally) that their claim was wrong.

The HCCC now know (as do everyone else) that they were just used as a tool by the SAVN.

The HCCC removed their own warning from their own website.

The HCCC spent thousands of taxpayers money in the process and thousands of taxpayers are not happy about this.

 

Basically, the HCCC lost - in a Supreme Court.

 

The SAVN have egg on their face. And you want to continue?

John, did your mother ever tell you about saving face? or losing graciously?
Seriously.

 

But I am not really surprised. You do like a debate don't you.

( .......................... )

Andrew.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/J1-1cHuIQg4J.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Andrew,

To claim the HCCC was used as a tool by SAVN is a little far fetched.  It was Meryl and the AVN that spent thousands of their donors money to take the case to court, and now that it has been to court, several decisions came from it.  One of them was that the AVN is a health provider, which Meryl continues to deny.  Do you also have issues with reading court transcripts?  Of course I want to continue.  Every time someone makes a false and unsupported statement with regards vaccination I'll continue, and it just so happens that these occasions occur with monotonous regularity.

Thanks for your contribution once more.

John

[JC]

Hi Meryl,

I'm all for freedom of information and all that, but recently you posted a picture of the ingredients of a multi-dose vial of a vaccine.  I assume you realise that the vaccine in question is not used in Australia?

As well, you claim that you can get the flu from the flu vaccine.  Again, you do realise, don't you, that the vaccine you were referring to is not available in Australia?

John

[Katie Brockie]

Can I please add that you can't get flu from the flu vaccine
"It is a killed vaccine. It cannot give you the influenza. It is impossible to get flu from the influenza vaccine." Mark Crislip. (a specialist doctor in infectious diseases)

cheers

Katie

--

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

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/HYvWuIIYaMsJ.

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

--
ph: 03 4728585
Mob: 021 1881282

[JC]

Hi Meryl,

You recently made the public statement that "SAVN says the thousands of Australian children who have killed or injured by vax are an acceptable price to pay."

Could you kindly provide any evidence that SAVN has made this claim, and can you also provide evidence for the thousands of children who have been killed or injured by vaccination?  Either you can, or this is another fairy tale.

John

[Tasha David]

Katie,

There is a phone and mobile number that is showing at the end of your post, I don't know if it is just my gmail account that is showing this but I just wanted to warn you just in case you were accidentally signing off your posts with your contact numbers attached.

Cheers
Tasha

[punter]

Can I please add that none of you have been able to show how a virus
can be shown to have been permanently and totally 'killed' vis-a-vis
vaccinations.

https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/e156cc2b1d624983

Can I also add that nobody has shown how any of the flu viruses - dead
or alive - by themselves actually cause flu. What we believe however
is that poisons cause sickness. Some of those symptoms of sickness
would very often be flu-like. Hence, the flu vaccine (which is poison)
causes flu symptoms.

Whether or not it causes actual bona-fide flu is irrelevant and
spurious because there is no reason to care about what germs people
have rather than what disease they actually have.

But thanks for the Mark Crislip reference. Don't suppose you can get
that guy on here to demonstrate how exactly researchers kill viruses
in vaccines and make sure every single one of them is 'dead'. I'm sure
it won't end up in him just going around in circles, denying the
bleeding obvious, shifting the burden of proof to us and having a sook
that we don't treat him with the deference he so deserves. Would never
happen.

On May 3, 2:47 pm, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can I please add that you can't get flu from the flu vaccine
> "It is a killed vaccine. It cannot give you the influenza. It is impossible
> to get flu from the influenza vaccine." Mark Crislip. (a specialist doctor
> in infectious diseases)
>
> cheers
>
> Katie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi Meryl,
> > I'm all for freedom of information and all that, but recently you posted a
> > picture of the ingredients of a multi-dose vial of a vaccine.  I assume you
> > realise that the vaccine in question is not used in Australia?
> > As well, you claim that you can get the flu from the flu vaccine.  Again,
> > you do realise, don't you, that the vaccine you were referring to is not
> > available in Australia?
> > John
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit

> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/HYvWu...
> > .

> > To post to this group, send an email to
> > vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> ph: 03 4728585

> Mob: 021 1881282- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Katie Brockie]

Punter,
please read this very understandable explanation of what viruses are and how they work and how they can cause illnesses, before we continue this conversation.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microscopic/virus-human.htm

Thanks,

Katie

And Tasha - thanks for telling me!!!

[punter]

And FYI I can see your phone numbers too Katie.

On May 4, 8:24 am, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Can I please add that none of you have been able to show how a virus
> can be shown to have been permanently and totally 'killed' vis-a-vis
> vaccinations.
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_...

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JC]

This thread is for Meryl please.  Can we please leave it so that Meryl has an opportunity to respond to specific criticisms of her specific comments in a public space - the way she wants it.

John

[punter]

Sorry Katie, are you trying to patronise me?

Good luck with that.

Anyway, I wanted to know how researchers could be certain that viruses
were dead when they injected them into people in a vaccine. I
personally doubt that the concept of a dead virus has any meaning, and
even if it did I can't see how researchers could possibly be sure that
every single viral particle in their vaccines was dead. Ashley
provided me with half an answer and in the thread I provided I
responded (to Mike Mayfield rather than Ashley but Ashley has yet to
counter-respond) with:

<It isn’t clear how a) proteins would denature
just because they were outside the body at room temperature after a
time (his context was the Hep B virus dying after 7 days); b) whether
all viral vaccines are indeed denatured; c) how scientists could be
positive that every single viral particle was denatured [you can read
the rest of my response to Mike to understand the context of this]; d)
how they
could be sure that they wouldn’t eventually (or immediately)
‘renature’ once inside the body; and e) why would the body even mount
an immune response to such a particle anyway given that it can’t
actually do anything viral like and even if an immune response was
mounted why would it actually learn anything?>

Now, do you have a reference that explains any of this or just wild
goose chases?

On May 7, 1:58 pm, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Punter,
> please read this very understandable explanation of what viruses are and
> how they work and how they can cause illnesses, before we continue this

> conversation.http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microsco...

[JC]

Dear Meryl,

In previous statements here you've claimed that you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of your vaccination status.  In a recent comment to an article in the Northern Star, you stated "There have been several nursing sisters and ambulance drivers who have lost their jobs in NSW because vaccination is compulsory here and another position could not be found for them in hospital."  Does this mean that people can be discriminated against, and you have finally acknowledged that?

John

[Katie Brockie]

punter,
I was responding to this statement you made:

"Can I also add that nobody has shown how any of the flu viruses - dead
or alive - by themselves actually cause flu."

by pointing you to a useful explanation of exactly how a flu virus (or viruses) cause flu. People know how this process works, and have actually seen it happening . There is no mystery about it.
Therefore when you say "no one has shown how any of the flu viruses .....cause flu" - you are incorrect.

I thought if you understood the process, it might make debate more rational.
Here's another site - with pictures.
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/flu.htm

cheers
K

[Peter McCarthy]

Tristan, this is a debating website.  Not your personal biology information portal.

Go out and do some reading, then come back and give us your critique on the processes of virus inactivation, methods of measuring efficiency of virus inactivation, antigenicity and how the immune system recognises something as foreign, immunity and "memory" of the immune system. Then we can "debate" you or "correct" you or "agree with" you, or whatever. 

If you aren't willing to put in the work to understand what things like "virus inactivation" and "number of passages after infection" mean, how can you possibly debate whether or not virus inactivation is actually a bone fide way of producing a vaccine?  Your post is a pathetic challenge to see if you can get someone to start explaining how something works, allowing you to stop them, dumb everything down and then say how you can poke holes in it, all the while having less than a laymans understanding of any of the processes.

This isn't "debating science" anymore.  You are delving into actual scientific processes and phenomena.  Without educating yourself in the area you will never, ever be able to hold a meaningful debate with anyone on the subject

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

[Greg Beattie]

Katie
I read that link. It doesn't answer Punter's question. It seems you're
all wanting Punter to go away and read stuff. None of you can answer
his question (and it's an important one). Given that none of YOU can
answer it, what makes you think it's available in links and textbooks.
How about no more links unless you can paraphrase the answer the link
supposedly contains. That last one was 8 pages - not a huge read, but
a definite waste of time in relation to the question. Actually, I'll
quote the only part that was remotely relevant:

"The host cells may undergo many rounds of reproduction, and then some
environmental or predetermined genetic signal will stir the "sleeping"
viral instructions."

Peter, if you can answer it why don't you?
Greg

On May 7, 1:58 pm, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Punter,
> please read this very understandable explanation of what viruses are and
> how they work and how they can cause illnesses, before we continue this

> conversation.http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microsco...

[Katie Brockie]

Greg, I'm not at all sure what punter's question is.
If he doesn't like to say viruses are "dead", then another way to describe "dead" viruses is as "inert". If a virus is inert it cannot reproduce, and these are what go into the flu vaccine. Someone else explains it better than I do. " Dead virus vaccine is just made up of viral protein casings. There's no DNA or RNA in them (or the DNA or RNA has been tampered with so that it doesn't work) Your body still sees that there are foreign proteins in your bloodstream, though, so it produces antibodies against them. So, in the future, if you're exposed to the actual virus, you'll already have the antibodies against it, and it won't infect you."
And: "One of the easiest ways to make a virus inert is to zap it with large amounts of UV light or gamma rays. Instant inert virus. Various chemicals also work. What you’re trying to do is fragment the DNA/RNA so much that it ceases to function."


So.... when a vaccine contains "dead" or "inert" viruses, there is no way they can suddenly "come to life" inside the body. It is impossible. And yes, they are all dead.

cheers

Katie
PS: punter does not seem to understand the basics of virology, so I thought it would help him to read and understand some of it. That way we can all be on the same page when debating.

[Peter McCarthy]

Because Greg, Tristan has never demonstrated either the capacity or willingness to consider the answers. These aren't trivial questions. As such, they require non-trivial answers. To debate the answers will require a level of engagement that goes beyond "this doesn't fit my belief system, therefore it's all wrong.". If Tristan engaged in the actual subject material, rather than a pseudo-intellectual challenge to everyone else that they convince him these things are real, he would be a much more interesting (and worthy) person to debate.

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

[Greg Beattie]

Peter
They say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. After
your performance on the "Debating science" thread I don't think you're
in a position to judge the worthiness or interest-value of others'
input.
If you give an answer to the question, and it's a reasonable one, then
you can make comment on how it's received. But given you haven't
provided an answer, you're just displaying discomfort at your own
inability to do so. Either answer it or don't. I don't care. But don't
have a go at people for asking questions. Real scientists welcome
questions, and ultimately the ability to explain technical matters in
non-technical terms is the thing that will win over consumers.
Actually it was Einstein who said that if you can't do that it shows
you don't really understand it yourself.

Greg

On May 9, 1:33 pm, Peter McCarthy <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because Greg, Tristan has never demonstrated either the capacity or
> willingness to consider the answers. These aren't trivial questions. As
> such, they require non-trivial answers. To debate the answers will require
> a level of engagement that goes beyond "this doesn't fit my belief system,
> therefore it's all wrong.". If Tristan engaged in the actual subject
> material, rather than a pseudo-intellectual challenge to everyone else that
> they convince him these things are real, he would be a much more
> interesting (and worthy) person to debate.

> On May 9, 2012 12:39 PM, "Greg Beattie" <pcmedics...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear all, this thread is addressed to meryl. Please let's not take it any further off topic. I apologise for my role in this.

Moderators, perhaps you could try and ensure this thread stays on course?

Cheers.

PS Greg - I've written to you back at the debating science thread.

[Meryl Dorey]

No JC - no matter how much you huff and puff and put on the old indignant act, it won't work. I want a public debate. I have been asking for one for years. You are terrified to participate in a public debate because you simply don't have the knowledge of this issue to face me successfully. So you make all kinds of excuses and then, try to blame me for your lack of cojones. Well John - put up or shut up. Public debate or nothing. This is not a new request. But it's one I won't enter into further discussions on. My time is too valuable to spend it spinning in circles at your request.

Meryl

On 23/05/2013, at 8:33 AM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Meryl of the family Dorey, in your Private capacity,

Every time you do this, you let your side down. You come here in a huff, make grandiose statements, clearly unrelated to the topic being discussed, then sneak away when it all gets too hot for you. Why bother? Why bother distracting me? And yes I'm talking to the person Meryl of the family Dorey, not the Person's Personal Representative.

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-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.
 
 

[Katie Brockie]

pj,

in the context you have quoted from there, they are talking about viruses that are "alive" as in they have their DNA or RNA in them.

If the DNA and RNA are destoyed or removed, they cannot affect anything. The human body creates antibodies against the protein in the virus. A "dead" virus (ie; without RNA, DNA) cannot invade and/or biochemically change a "living" cell.

Here's a quote from the article you quoted:
"Further research by Stanley and others established that a virus consists of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein coat that may also shelter viral proteins involved in infection. By that description, a virus seems more like a chemistry set than an organism. But when a virus enters a cell (called a host after infection), it is far from inactive. It sheds its coat, bares its genes and induces the cell’s own replication machinery to reproduce the intruder’s DNA or RNA and manufacture more viral protein based on the instructions in the viral nucleic acid. The newly created viral bits assemble and, voilà, more virus arises, which also may infect other cells."

Katie