> CitizenJimserac<jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 6, 4:18 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > >> Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: > >> >People are free to post anything here except lies and spam.
> >> Does that mean that you will never again say that something is > >> off-topic?
> >> >That is you. Get over your control problem old man,
> >> I'm just off to eBay to look for a new irony meter.
> >> -- > >> Peter Bowditch aa #2243 > >> The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles > >> Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au > >> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
> >Bowdie!!!!!!
> >Good to hear from you!
> >You know how you are always mentioning the importance of scientific > >testing to verify that Homeopathy works?
> >Well, I have some rather disturbing news for you.
> >You had better sit down before reading onwards.
> >It seems that the scientific verification of the flu vaccines and > >certain well known flu remedies, has been rather lacking and that some > >scientists and officials apparently are accepting their efficacy ON > >FAITH!!!
> So what?
> >I knew you would agree with me that the idea of Homeopathic > >Osciloococinum (or however you spell the crazy thing) which is in the > >Cochrane database as good for limiting the duration and severity of > >the flu (but not for preventing it) as being as good as, or BETTER > >than relenza or the other flu remedy is startling to say the least.
> Did you think I wasn't aware of the duck liver fraud? I've found that > when people start telling me about the wonders of homeopathy a useful > remedy is to tell them about the duck. I've found that even small > children fall about laughing when I ask if they believe that all the > flu medicine in the world can be made from just one duck. When I tell > them that a major "medicine" company in France makes many millions of > dollars a year by selling just one duck over and over again they laugh > even louder and ask me if I made up the joke myself or heard it > somewhere else.
> 200C duck liver! Priceless!
Then you'd better DUCK the highly esteemed Cochrane database in which the test for Oscilococcinum indicates efficacy above placebo for reducing the severity AND duration of the flu) http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html
and...
Rabe, M. Weiser, P. Klein, Effectiveness and tolerability of a homoeopathic remedy compared with conventional therapy for mild viral infections. Int J Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;58(9):827-32.
> Got anything from a medical journal, not written by hack journalists?
See the above for yourself, sketpic Bowdie......
Returning to the main discussion.... (quote from the Atlantic Monthly article questioning the usefulness of the Flu Vaccine follows:) "In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”" (quoted from "DOES THE VACCINE MATTER?" by Brownlee and Lenzer, Atlantic Monthly magazine).
Continue reading to see what journal published the study....
I will repeat that comment, from the University Professor of Global Health, for the benefit of "skeptic" Bowdie: "They are classic studies in epidemiology they are so carefully done".
And...
"The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials." (quoted from "DOES THE VACCINE MATTER?" by Brownlee and Lenzer, Atlantic Monthly magazine)
"...they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials" AND BY SKEPTIC BOWDIE, WHO GOES ON THE WAR PATH AGAINST HOMEOPATHY AT THE SLIGHTEST WHIFF OF INSUFFICIENT TESTING (AND CORRECTLY SO IN MY OPINION), BUT SOMEHOW..... LOOKS THE OTHER WAY WHEN THE SAME THING HAPPENS IN ONE OF HIS FAVORITE "STANDARD" MEDICAL TREATMENTS.
AND THIS is the double standard about which I have spoken many times, clearly evidenced.
Again, Bowdie, you have NOT ADDRESSED another major defect in the publicity touting the flu vaccines, namely THIS:
"The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise."
I will repeat that for BOWDIE - "Yet mortality did not rise".
How very very interesting! Why not? If the flu vaccines are indeed working, and there was 40% drop in the number of people getting "immunized" (sic) [the reader will note my interpolation of the Latin "sic" here, yes, it could be considered a pun but in fact refers to my personal objection of utilizing the word "immunization" with regard to the flu vaccine because against all types of the virus one is most certainly NOT immunized.
Although I do NOT agree with everything John has posted, the assertion that there has NOT REALLY BEEN any real definitive testing of the flu vaccines can be seen in a new light on the basis of the Atlantic Monthly article, which describes the experiences of researchers who, after careful research, came up with the politically incorrect conclusion that the flu vaccines are not as "useful" as they have been made out to be.
What will it be SKEPTIC BOWDIE? Science or presumption? I am absolutely certain that Bowdie, being a devotee of "science' will not for one moment tolerate vaccination testing woo.
Therefore, I Am looking forward to the expose' of the flu vaccine testing inadequacies at your excellent(!?) web site!
Keep up the good work, skeptic Bowdie, you are an inspiration to al... er, to most of us!
Citizen Jimserac (Aside to MolluscMensch, am greatly missing your postings, many thanks for numerous interesting links, sorry about your misconception of R. Steiner and the Antrhoposophists.)
> On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And > > >> >> since > > >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high > > >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this > > >> >> claim again, right?
> > >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could > > >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it > > >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine > > >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are > > >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
> > >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > > >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other > > >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is > > >> evidence and what is not.
> > >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either > > > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting > > > my position
> > No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
> You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you > and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my > problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
> Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to > availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," > by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, > of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be > attributed to measures introduced for the control of these diseases. > This means that vaccine may have accounted for only 1% of the dramatic > decline in disease-related mortality during the twentieth century, or > none at all. What's more, without assessment of the risk of adverse > reactions that might show vaccines to be responsible for an overall > reduction in life years, this "intervention" violates the > Precautionary Principle, as well. The Precautionary Principle states > that the burden of proof for any intervention (medical or otherwise) > must rest with its proponents. It is critical to understand that > rates of infection, unlike measles mortality, were never reliably > assessed and were, in fact, dramatically under reported. According to > Alfred S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections > of Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a > factor of ten. So say the authors: "...prior to introduction of > measles vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the > United States every year, but 4 million children were born and > essentially all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that > could only have been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the > mean true number of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the > infection rate was ten times higher than is commonly reported, meaning > the true mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is > claimed by the drug makers. False information dispensed by pro- > vaccine agents of industry rests mostly on theoretical science in the > form of antibody titres, community surveys and historical fallacies. > Any discussion of the fatality risk of measles based on data supplied > by vaccine makers, in the absence of meaningful safety data, > represents an assault on public health.
> > There > > are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
> Admission is the first step to recovery.
> > >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do > > >that, your claims are baseless.
> > >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized > > >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that > > >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine > > >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from > > >> people is immoral.
> > >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no > > >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is > > > safe using it is immoral.
> > Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
> You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for > vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
> > >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding > > >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
> > Oh, then why are you here?
> I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you > post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
> > Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements > > on behalf of your employers.
> We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false > claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
> > Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be > > getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income > > from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when > > the economy was doing great and reappeared when > > unemployment had gone up. > > The pattern is unmistakable.
How interesting that my favorite poster, Bowdie, seems to be laboring under similar delusions as Marty!
I am certain that they will see reason, once the TOTAL ABSENCE OF FULL SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION of the flu vaccines becomes obvious to even the most casual observer. As it must.
<jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 4:48 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> > >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And >> > >> >> since >> > >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high >> > >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this >> > >> >> claim again, right?
>> > >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could >> > >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it >> > >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine >> > >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are >> > >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
>> > >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very >> > >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other >> > >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is >> > >> evidence and what is not.
>> > >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either >> > > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting >> > > my position
>> > No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
>> You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you >> and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my >> problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
>> Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to >> availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," >> by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, >> of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be >> attributed to measures introduced for the control of these diseases. >> This means that vaccine may have accounted for only 1% of the dramatic >> decline in disease-related mortality during the twentieth century, or >> none at all. What's more, without assessment of the risk of adverse >> reactions that might show vaccines to be responsible for an overall >> reduction in life years, this "intervention" violates the >> Precautionary Principle, as well. The Precautionary Principle states >> that the burden of proof for any intervention (medical or otherwise) >> must rest with its proponents. It is critical to understand that >> rates of infection, unlike measles mortality, were never reliably >> assessed and were, in fact, dramatically under reported. According to >> Alfred S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections >> of Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a >> factor of ten. So say the authors: "...prior to introduction of >> measles vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the >> United States every year, but 4 million children were born and >> essentially all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that >> could only have been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the >> mean true number of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the >> infection rate was ten times higher than is commonly reported, meaning >> the true mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is >> claimed by the drug makers. False information dispensed by pro- >> vaccine agents of industry rests mostly on theoretical science in the >> form of antibody titres, community surveys and historical fallacies. >> Any discussion of the fatality risk of measles based on data supplied >> by vaccine makers, in the absence of meaningful safety data, >> represents an assault on public health.
>> > There >> > are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
>> Admission is the first step to recovery.
>> > >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do >> > >that, your claims are baseless.
>> > >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized >> > >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that >> > >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine >> > >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from >> > >> people is immoral.
>> > >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no >> > >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is >> > > safe using it is immoral.
>> > Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
>> You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for >> vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
>> > >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding >> > >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
>> > >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
>> > Oh, then why are you here?
>> I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you >> post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
>> > Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements >> > on behalf of your employers.
>> We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false >> claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
>> > Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be >> > getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income >> > from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when >> > the economy was doing great and reappeared when >> > unemployment had gone up. >> > The pattern is unmistakable.
>How interesting that my favorite poster, Bowdie, seems to be laboring >under similar delusions as Marty!
>I am certain that they will see reason, once the TOTAL ABSENCE OF FULL >SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION of the flu vaccines becomes obvious to even >the most casual observer. As it must.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez A search for "efficacy of influenza vaccine" gives 1224 results. Take a look at a few abstracts, and it will become obvious to even the most casual observer that there is loads and loads and loads of FULL SCIENTIFIC VERIFACTIONS of flu vaccines. Your refusal to do even the most basis research about the subject is almost sickening.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And >> >> >> since >> >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high >> >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this >> >> >> claim again, right?
>> >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could >> >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it >> >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine >> >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are >> >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
>> >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very >> >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other >> >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is >> >> evidence and what is not.
>> >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either >> > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting >> > my position
>> No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
>You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you >and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my >problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
>Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to >availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," >by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST,
< snip >
So that's what you have, a few quotes from a book. No reference to any science. Exactly like I said - you have zero science to back up your claims. And thank you for proving my point. Who needs allies with enemies like you who keep on shooting themselves in the foot.
>> There >> are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
>Admission is the first step to recovery.
>> >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do >> >that, your claims are baseless.
>> >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized >> >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that >> >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine >> >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from >> >> people is immoral.
>> >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no >> >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is >> > safe using it is immoral.
>> Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
>You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for >vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
I did not admit that. All I said is that you are so incredibly stupid and ignorant about the most basic things regarding medical research that you do not understand that evidence in medical research does not equal randomized placebo controlled trials. There is for instance no such research for stopping arterial bleeding, but I hope that even you must admit that stopping arterial bleeding is a safe and effective intervention, even with the absense of such trials. If you don't agree with that I can only conclude that you are completely insane.
>> >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding >> >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
>> >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
>> Oh, then why are you here?
>I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you >post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
You usually make my case all by yourself. Like when you claim that when some says they can cure all disease it does not mean they can cure all patients.
>> Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements >> on behalf of your employers.
>We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false >claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
>> Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be >> getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income >> from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when >> the economy was doing great and reappeared when >> unemployment had gone up. >> The pattern is unmistakable.
Citizen Jimserac <jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 2:32 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> CitizenJimserac<jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 6, 4:18 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> >> Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >People are free to post anything here except lies and spam.
>> >> Does that mean that you will never again say that something is >> >> off-topic?
>> >> >That is you. Get over your control problem old man,
>> >> I'm just off to eBay to look for a new irony meter.
>> >> -- >> >> Peter Bowditch aa #2243 >> >> The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles >> >> Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au >> >> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
>> >Bowdie!!!!!!
>> >Good to hear from you!
>> >You know how you are always mentioning the importance of scientific >> >testing to verify that Homeopathy works?
>> >Well, I have some rather disturbing news for you.
>> >You had better sit down before reading onwards.
>> >It seems that the scientific verification of the flu vaccines and >> >certain well known flu remedies, has been rather lacking and that some >> >scientists and officials apparently are accepting their efficacy ON >> >FAITH!!!
>> So what?
>> >I knew you would agree with me that the idea of Homeopathic >> >Osciloococinum (or however you spell the crazy thing) which is in the >> >Cochrane database as good for limiting the duration and severity of >> >the flu (but not for preventing it) as being as good as, or BETTER >> >than relenza or the other flu remedy is startling to say the least.
>> Did you think I wasn't aware of the duck liver fraud? I've found that >> when people start telling me about the wonders of homeopathy a useful >> remedy is to tell them about the duck. I've found that even small >> children fall about laughing when I ask if they believe that all the >> flu medicine in the world can be made from just one duck. When I tell >> them that a major "medicine" company in France makes many millions of >> dollars a year by selling just one duck over and over again they laugh >> even louder and ask me if I made up the joke myself or heard it >> somewhere else.
>> 200C duck liver! Priceless!
>Then you'd better DUCK the highly esteemed Cochrane database >in which the test for Oscilococcinum indicates efficacy above placebo >for reducing the severity AND duration of the flu) >http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html
Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes
The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Reason for withdrawal
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors were unable to update it. The review will be updated by a new team of authors.
I guess that says it all. It now has a homeopathic existence in the Cochrane Library, so further reference to it or citing it will mean nothing.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:02:53 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
> <jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 4:48 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> > >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And > >> > >> >> since > >> > >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high > >> > >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this > >> > >> >> claim again, right?
> >> > >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could > >> > >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it > >> > >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine > >> > >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are > >> > >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
> >> > >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > >> > >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other > >> > >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is > >> > >> evidence and what is not.
> >> > >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either > >> > > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting > >> > > my position
> >> > No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
> >> You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you > >> and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my > >> problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
> >> Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to > >> availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," > >> by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, > >> of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be > >> attributed to measures introduced for the control of these diseases. > >> This means that vaccine may have accounted for only 1% of the dramatic > >> decline in disease-related mortality during the twentieth century, or > >> none at all. What's more, without assessment of the risk of adverse > >> reactions that might show vaccines to be responsible for an overall > >> reduction in life years, this "intervention" violates the > >> Precautionary Principle, as well. The Precautionary Principle states > >> that the burden of proof for any intervention (medical or otherwise) > >> must rest with its proponents. It is critical to understand that > >> rates of infection, unlike measles mortality, were never reliably > >> assessed and were, in fact, dramatically under reported. According to > >> Alfred S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections > >> of Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a > >> factor of ten. So say the authors: "...prior to introduction of > >> measles vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the > >> United States every year, but 4 million children were born and > >> essentially all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that > >> could only have been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the > >> mean true number of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the > >> infection rate was ten times higher than is commonly reported, meaning > >> the true mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is > >> claimed by the drug makers. False information dispensed by pro- > >> vaccine agents of industry rests mostly on theoretical science in the > >> form of antibody titres, community surveys and historical fallacies. > >> Any discussion of the fatality risk of measles based on data supplied > >> by vaccine makers, in the absence of meaningful safety data, > >> represents an assault on public health.
> >> > There > >> > are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
> >> Admission is the first step to recovery.
> >> > >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do > >> > >that, your claims are baseless.
> >> > >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized > >> > >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that > >> > >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine > >> > >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from > >> > >> people is immoral.
> >> > >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no > >> > >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is > >> > > safe using it is immoral.
> >> > Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
> >> You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for > >> vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
> >> > >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding > >> > >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
> >> > >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
> >> > Oh, then why are you here?
> >> I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you > >> post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
> >> > Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements > >> > on behalf of your employers.
> >> We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false > >> claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
> >> > Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be > >> > getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income > >> > from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when > >> > the economy was doing great and reappeared when > >> > unemployment had gone up. > >> > The pattern is unmistakable.
> >How interesting that my favorite poster, Bowdie, seems to be laboring > >under similar delusions as Marty!
> >I am certain that they will see reason, once the TOTAL ABSENCE OF FULL > >SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION of the flu vaccines becomes obvious to even > >the most casual observer. As it must.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez > A search for "efficacy of influenza vaccine" gives 1224 results. Take > a look at a few abstracts, and it will become obvious to even the most > casual observer that there is loads and loads and loads of FULL > SCIENTIFIC VERIFACTIONS of flu vaccines. > Your refusal to do even the most basis research about the subject is > almost sickening.
> > > > I don't know who pays for the crap on whale.to. However, the idiots who > > > > believe the site do pay in the long, in shorter and less healthy lives.
> > > Nice personal attack from one who is not a dr.
> > Note that he has never represented that he actively practices.
> Profession : Medicine Type : Medical Doctor - Educational Limited > Permanent ID # Status Issue Date Expiration Date > 4301066017 Lapsed 07/01/1995 06/30/1997
> FACT:
> He is not a dr.
When any doctorate degree is conferred on a person, they may, forever, call themselves doctor.
For example, Betty Martini, the nut case who hates aspartame, calls herself Dr. because she has an honorary one, that means she did not attend class or study for it, from an unaccredited bible college.
She is legally entitled to do so.
So is Jeff, who attended classes, studied, and worked as a physician.
You do not like it, but, too damn bad.
> And, you are calling names again
Just trying to help you improve.
> Thus, you lied when you posted *I read torah everyday*. > And he lies he is not a dr.-
Discussion subject changed to "Physicians and health professionals are now speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination." by Mark Probert
> On Nov 6, 7:35 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 12:03 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:14:04 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Nov 4, 4:14 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:00:46 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > > >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >On Nov 3, 5:09 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:29 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > > >> >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > > >> >> >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > > >> >> >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > > >> >> >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > > >> >> >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > > >> >> >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > > >> >> >> and are depressed.
> > > >> >> >When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago,
> > > >> >> Got any proof your cousin was killed by a vaccine?
> > > >> >I don't. My mother was very young (she was there with her niece) and > > > >> >lawsuits in those days were rare. Alanna was perfectly well going > > > >> >into the facility, perfectly dead an hour after vaccination.
> > > >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And since you > > > >> are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high standards > > > >> you hold others, you will not ever mention this claim again, right?
> > > >I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could prove > > > >exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it affected my > > > >mother so deeply and the association to vaccine was marked. I may > > > >remind others that *their* stories are anecdotal and therefore > > > >unproven.
> > > The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > > > agressive tone, unreasonable evidence foranythingotherpeoplesay > > > and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is evidence and what is > > > not. Your demand for instance that you want a randomized placebo > > > controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that you neither > > > understand what constitutes evidence in medicine noranythingabout > > > morals. Yes Petey, witholding vaccines frompeopleis immoral.
On Nov 6, 11:39 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:35 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Exactly. He plays thgese games, and when called on it, blames > > the person, such as me, who calls him. If he stopped his games, > > there may be a discussion.
> I can't blame you for having zero knowledge of medical science, > markey. I also can't blame you for failing to cite your sources, as > there aren't any. It's funny you would suggest having a discussion > when you aren't capable of having one, but maybe you derive some > satisfaction being a comic.
Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:48:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original ><p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>>> >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And >>> >> >> since >>> >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high >>> >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this >>> >> >> claim again, right?
>>> >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could >>> >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it >>> >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine >>> >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are >>> >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
>>> >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very >>> >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other >>> >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is >>> >> evidence and what is not.
>>> >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either >>> > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting >>> > my position
>>> No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
>>You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you >>and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my >>problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
>>Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to >>availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," >>by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, >< snip >
>So that's what you have, a few quotes from a book. No reference to any >science. Exactly like I said - you have zero science to back up your >claims. And thank you for proving my point. Who needs allies with >enemies like you who keep on shooting themselves in the foot.
That's his only citation. and those are basically references to a nonpeer reviewed study of questionable merit IIRC.
Peatey's use of the single refuted Beaglehole study is as bad as John citing articles on his own web site as authoritative in nature.
>>> There >>> are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
>>Admission is the first step to recovery.
>>> >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do >>> >that, your claims are baseless.
>>> >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized >>> >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that >>> >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine >>> >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from >>> >> people is immoral.
>>> >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no >>> >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is >>> > safe using it is immoral.
>>> Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
>>You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for >>vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
>I did not admit that. All I said is that you are so incredibly stupid >and ignorant about the most basic things regarding medical research >that you do not understand that evidence in medical research does not >equal randomized placebo controlled trials. There is for instance no >such research for stopping arterial bleeding, but I hope that even you >must admit that stopping arterial bleeding is a safe and effective >intervention, even with the absense of such trials. If you don't agree >with that I can only conclude that you are completely insane.
Peatey will redefine words, to meet his own meanings when necessary.
>>> >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding >>> >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
>>> >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
>>> Oh, then why are you here?
>>I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you >>post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
>You usually make my case all by yourself. Like when you claim that >when some says they can cure all disease it does not mean they can >cure all patients.
>>> Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements >>> on behalf of your employers.
>>We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false >>claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
>>> Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be >>> getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income >>> from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when >>> the economy was doing great and reappeared when >>> unemployment had gone up. >>> The pattern is unmistakable.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:02:53 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
> <jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 4:48 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> > >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And > >> > >> >> since > >> > >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high > >> > >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this > >> > >> >> claim again, right?
> >> > >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could > >> > >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it > >> > >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine > >> > >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are > >> > >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
> >> > >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > >> > >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other > >> > >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is > >> > >> evidence and what is not.
> >> > >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either > >> > > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting > >> > > my position
> >> > No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
> >> You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you > >> and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my > >> problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
> >> Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to > >> availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," > >> by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, > >> of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be > >> attributed to measures introduced for the control of these diseases. > >> This means that vaccine may have accounted for only 1% of the dramatic > >> decline in disease-related mortality during the twentieth century, or > >> none at all. What's more, without assessment of the risk of adverse > >> reactions that might show vaccines to be responsible for an overall > >> reduction in life years, this "intervention" violates the > >> Precautionary Principle, as well. The Precautionary Principle states > >> that the burden of proof for any intervention (medical or otherwise) > >> must rest with its proponents. It is critical to understand that > >> rates of infection, unlike measles mortality, were never reliably > >> assessed and were, in fact, dramatically under reported. According to > >> Alfred S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections > >> of Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a > >> factor of ten. So say the authors: "...prior to introduction of > >> measles vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the > >> United States every year, but 4 million children were born and > >> essentially all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that > >> could only have been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the > >> mean true number of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the > >> infection rate was ten times higher than is commonly reported, meaning > >> the true mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is > >> claimed by the drug makers. False information dispensed by pro- > >> vaccine agents of industry rests mostly on theoretical science in the > >> form of antibody titres, community surveys and historical fallacies. > >> Any discussion of the fatality risk of measles based on data supplied > >> by vaccine makers, in the absence of meaningful safety data, > >> represents an assault on public health.
> >> > There > >> > are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
> >> Admission is the first step to recovery.
> >> > >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do > >> > >that, your claims are baseless.
> >> > >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized > >> > >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that > >> > >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine > >> > >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from > >> > >> people is immoral.
> >> > >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no > >> > >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is > >> > > safe using it is immoral.
> >> > Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
> >> You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for > >> vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
> >> > >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding > >> > >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
> >> > >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
> >> > Oh, then why are you here?
> >> I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you > >> post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
> >> > Oh yes, I forgot, to push supplements > >> > on behalf of your employers.
> >> We both know you never produced the post you said proved this false > >> claim of yours. And we both know what that means.
> >> > Tell me Petey, I hear the economy is picking up again. Will you be > >> > getting a real job again soon, so you'll no longer need the income > >> > from posting here? I haven't failed to notice you disappeared when > >> > the economy was doing great and reappeared when > >> > unemployment had gone up. > >> > The pattern is unmistakable.
> >How interesting that my favorite poster, Bowdie, seems to be laboring > >under similar delusions as Marty!
> >I am certain that they will see reason, once the TOTAL ABSENCE OF FULL > >SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION of the flu vaccines becomes obvious to even > >the most casual observer. As it must.
And a search on "vaccine failure" gives 3,090 results. Don't tell me, it only works when you do it. I'm sure you will proceed to tell us how your result is somehow more meaningful, despite the fact your word string search was ambiguous and mine was not. Go ahead, make a bigger jackass out of yourself than you already have, as if that were possible.
> Take > a look at a few abstracts, and it will become obvious to even the most > casual observer that there is loads and loads and loads of FULL > SCIENTIFIC VERIFACTIONS of flu vaccines. > Your refusal to do even the most basis research about the subject is > almost sickening.
marty, getting a hit on a search about vaccine does not prove vaccine safety or effectiveness. I proved that to Blowdip when I did a search using the word string "chemotherapy Early Death." Do you know how many hits there were?
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:48:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And > >> >> >> since > >> >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high > >> >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this > >> >> >> claim again, right?
> >> >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could > >> >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it > >> >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine > >> >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are > >> >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
> >> >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > >> >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other > >> >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is > >> >> evidence and what is not.
> >> >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either > >> > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting > >> > my position
> >> No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
> >You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you > >and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my > >problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
> >Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to > >availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," > >by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST,
> < snip > (what he could not refute)
> So that's what you have, a few quotes from a book.
This particular quote refutes the myth that vaccines had more than a tiny impact on declining rates of mortality from 1900 to 1975. You see, marty, published information by a respected WHO scientist carries weight because, unlike you, he is a published scientist. If you have a source you can cite to counter, now is the time to do it. No? I didn't think so.
> No reference to any > science.
marty, you're an idiot. It's a miracle you can even SPELL the word "science."
> Exactly like I said - you have zero science to back up your > claims. And thank you for proving my point. Who needs allies with > enemies like you who keep on shooting themselves in the foot.
So (for the hundredth time) post your sources. No? I didn't think so.
> >> There > >> are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
> >Admission is the first step to recovery.
> >> >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do > >> >that, your claims are baseless.
> >> >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized > >> >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that > >> >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine > >> >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from > >> >> people is immoral.
> >> >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no > >> >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is > >> > safe using it is immoral.
> >> Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
> >You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for > >vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
> I did not admit that.
Not only did you admit it, you defended it. You said it would be "immoral" to withhold untested vaccine. It's your argument, dumbass, not mine.
> All I said is that you are so incredibly stupid > and ignorant about the most basic things regarding medical research > that you do not understand that evidence in medical research does not > equal randomized placebo controlled trials.
Please enlighten us. Don't forget to cite your sources. Oh, that's right, you don't believe in sources. It's just you against published science.
> There is for instance no > such research for stopping arterial bleeding, but I hope that even you > must admit that stopping arterial bleeding is a safe and effective > intervention, even with the absense of such trials.
Artificial immunization can't be compared to arterial bleeding, which is an emergency medical condition. You're a complete moron.
> >> >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding > >> >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
> >> >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
> >> Oh, then why are you here?
> >I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you > >post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
> You usually make my case all by yourself.
That must explain why you always have something stupid to add.
> On Nov 7, 4:54 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:48:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 7, 3:56 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:31:23 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > >> >> >> So, without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. And > > >> >> >> since > > >> >> >> you are not a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same high > > >> >> >> standards you hold others, you will not ever mention this > > >> >> >> claim again, right?
> > >> >> > I never said her death was not anecdotal. I never said I could > > >> >> > prove exactly how it happened. I tell the story because it > > >> >> > affected my mother so deeply and the association to vaccine > > >> >> > was marked. I may remind others that *their* stories are > > >> >> > anecdotal and therefore unproven.
> > >> >> The point is, that is not what you do. You demand, with a very > > >> >> agressive tone, unreasonable evidence for anything other > > >> >> people say and at the same time, YOU get to decide what is > > >> >> evidence and what is not.
> > >> >There is no such thing as "unreasonable evidence." You either > > >> > have it or you don't. I produce the published science supporting > > >> > my position
> > >> No, you don't.There is no science supporting your position.
> > >You mean there is no science you understand or grasp. I realize you > > >and your sponsors have to operate at the margins, but that's not my > > >problem. Here is a re-post of my earlier synopsis on vaccine:
> > >Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to > > >availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," > > >by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST,
> > < snip > (what he could not refute)
> > So that's what you have, a few quotes from a book.
> This particular quote refutes the myth that vaccines had more than a > tiny impact on declining rates of mortality from 1900 to 1975. You > see, marty, published information by a respected WHO scientist carries > weight because, unlike you, he is a published scientist. If you have > a source you can cite to counter, now is the time to do it. No? I > didn't think so.
> > No reference to any > > science.
> marty, you're an idiot. It's a miracle you can even SPELL the word > "science."
> > Exactly like I said - you have zero science to back up your > > claims. And thank you for proving my point. Who needs allies with > > enemies like you who keep on shooting themselves in the foot.
> So (for the hundredth time) post your sources. No? I didn't think > so.
> > >> There > > >> are only claims made by clueless twits and frauds.
> > >Admission is the first step to recovery.
> > >> >on the issues and I expect others to do the same. If you can't do > > >> >that, your claims are baseless.
> > >> >> Your demand for instance that you want a randomized > > >> >> placebo controlled trial for vaccinations for instance shows that > > >> >> you neither understand what constitutes evidence in medicine > > >> >> nor anything about morals.Yes Petey, witholding vaccines from > > >> >> people is immoral.
> > >> >Ethical medicine requires that the intervention must first do no > > >> >harm. When there is no evidence that a medical intervention is > > >> > safe using it is immoral.
> > >> Well, that means vaccines are not immoral.
> > >You already admitted that randomized placebo controlled trials for > > >vaccinations do not exist. You can't have it both ways.
> > I did not admit that.
> Not only did you admit it, you defended it. You said it would be > "immoral" to withhold untested vaccine. It's your argument, dumbass, > not mine.
> > All I said is that you are so incredibly stupid > > and ignorant about the most basic things regarding medical research > > that you do not understand that evidence in medical research does not > > equal randomized placebo controlled trials.
> Please enlighten us. Don't forget to cite your sources. Oh, that's > right, you don't believe in sources. It's just you against published > science.
> > There is for instance no > > such research for stopping arterial bleeding, but I hope that even you > > must admit that stopping arterial bleeding is a safe and effective > > intervention, even with the absense of such trials.
> Artificial immunization can't be compared to arterial bleeding, which > is an emergency medical condition. You're a complete moron.
> > >> >> So, as long as you do not come up with evidence regarding > > >> >> your cousin, I say you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > >> >Do your pharmnut thing. I'm not here to stop you.
> > >> Oh, then why are you here?
> > >I'm here to help to help you get your message out. Every time you > > >post to me, it's another opportunity for you to make your case.
> > You usually make my case all by yourself.
> That must explain why you always have something stupid to add.
> > Like when you claim that > > when some says they can cure all disease it does not mean they can > > cure all patients.
