> On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > you do it?
> Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he knows > he's a fraud.
Wrong, illogical one.
First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight to the peer reviewed science.
Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless, since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the language, and whatever else you can find.
> On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > you do it?
> > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > knows he's a fraud.
> Wrong, illogical one.
> First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > to the peer reviewed science.
Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't respond with this information because there is nothing published supporting anything you have to say.
> Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > language, and whatever else you can find.
> On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > you do it?
> > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > Wrong, illogical one.
> > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > to the peer reviewed science.
> Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > respond with this information because there is nothing published > supporting anything you have to say.
Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO POINT in providing a substantive response.
> > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid closed mind, there is no point.
> > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > you do it?
> > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > supporting anything you have to say.
> Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > POINT in providing a substantive response.
Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > closed mind, there is no point.
Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> Is that the best you can do?
Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of generosity. Dumbass.
> On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > > you do it?
> > > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > > supporting anything you have to say.
> > Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > > POINT in providing a substantive response.
> Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> > There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > > closed mind, there is no point.
> Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> > Is that the best you can do?
> Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of > generosity. Dumbass
> On Nov 2, 2:26 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > > > you do it?
> > > > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > > > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > > > supporting anything you have to say.
> > > Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > > > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > > > POINT in providing a substantive response.
> > Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > > > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> > > There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > > > closed mind, there is no point.
> > Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > > > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> > > Is that the best you can do?
> > Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of > > generosity. Dumbass
> WOW! What an exercise in PROJECTION
Unlike you, I cite my sources. Unlike you, a coward, I don't run away from the facts.
> On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2:26 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > > > > you do it?
> > > > > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > > > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > > > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > > > > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > > > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > > > > supporting anything you have to say.
> > > > Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > > > > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > > > > POINT in providing a substantive response.
> > > Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > > > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > > > > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> > > > There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > > > > closed mind, there is no point.
> > > Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > > > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > > > > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> > > > Is that the best you can do?
> > > Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of > > > generosity. Dumbass
> > WOW! What an exercise in PROJECTION
> Unlike you, I cite my sources. Unlike you, a coward, I don't run > away from the facts
Unlike me, you torture logic, use idiotsyncratic meanings of words, cherry pick quotes, and play other semantic games.
I am sorry if my refusal to play you game upsets you.
> On Nov 2, 11:54 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 2:26 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > > > > > you do it?
> > > > > > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > > > > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > > > > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > > > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > > > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > > > > > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > > > > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > > > > > supporting anything you have to say.
> > > > > Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > > > > > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > > > > > POINT in providing a substantive response.
> > > > Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > > > > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > > > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > > > > > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> > > > > There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > > > > > closed mind, there is no point.
> > > > Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > > > > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > > > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > > > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > > > > > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> > > > > Is that the best you can do?
> > > > Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of > > > > generosity. Dumbass
> > > WOW! What an exercise in PROJECTION
> > Unlike you, I cite my sources. Unlike you, a coward, I don't run > > away from the facts
> Unlike me, you torture logic...
No, I quote statistics proving you are full of shit. Your lie about the measles death rate was disproved, your lie that vaccine was a major factor in declining mortality during the 20th century was disproved, and your promotion of chemotherapy on the basis of evidence that doesn't exist has been exposed. The reason you and your fellow pharmnuts cannot cite published science proving your claims is because it doesn't exist.
>, use idiotsyncratic meanings of words,
Oh? Give an example.
> cherry pick quotes, and play other semantic games.
Quoting statistics that prove you wrong are not "cherry picked," they are facts contained in the medical literature. Whining that you can't be bothered to post published science supporting your own beliefs only proves that you're a fraud.
> I am sorry if my refusal to play you game upsets you.
I am not upset, markey. I said I was here to help you get your message out. Isn't that what you want?
> On Nov 3, 10:27 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 11:54 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 2:26 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:22 am, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 12:41 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:45 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > HHS, which I'm sure you've never heard of, reports these > > > > > > > > > > stats. Try looking it up.
> > > > > > > > > > > I am quite aware of what HHS is. And, no, they do not have > > > > > > > > > > > those stats available on line. If you disagree, post a link.
> > > > > > > > > > I will post the link if you first provide a list of books you have > > > > > > > > > > read on medical science by which your opinions are formed. Can > > > > > > > > > > you do it?
> > > > > > > > > Mark Probert did not respond with this information because he > > > > > > > > > knows he's a fraud.
> > > > > > > > Wrong, illogical one.
> > > > > > > > First, I do not place reliance on *books* since they are, at best, > > > > > > > > second hand renditions of original material. I prefer to go straight > > > > > > > > to the peer reviewed science.
> > > > > > > Liar. You demonstrate zero knowledge of medical science and can't > > > > > > > respond with this information because there is nothing published > > > > > > > supporting anything you have to say.
> > > > > > Liar? Coming from an asshole, I consider that just flatulence. There > > > > > > is plenty published, you just ignore it if it is posted. There is NO > > > > > > POINT in providing a substantive response.
> > > > > Brilliant argument -- for a liar.
> > > > > > > > Second, as I have pointed out a hundred times, based on my experience > > > > > > > > and observations, discussing anything with you is utterly pointless...
> > > > > > > Markey, when you have nothing to say, why bother?
> > > > > > There is plenty to say. However, saying it to you with your rock solid > > > > > > closed mind, there is no point.
> > > > > Bullshit. You're a fraud.
> > > > > > > > since, as soon as there are facts presented, you discount them using > > > > > > > > your tactics of illogic, semantic masturbation, torture of the > > > > > > > > language, and whatever else you can find.
> > > > > > > Go back to reading your comic books, Markey.
> > > > > > Is that the best you can do?
> > > > > Giving you credit for being able to read comics was an act of > > > > > generosity. Dumbass
> > > > WOW! What an exercise in PROJECTION
> > > Unlike you, I cite my sources. Unlike you, a coward, I don't run > > > away from the facts
> > Unlike me, you torture logic...
> No, I quote statistics proving you are full of shit.
No, you cherry pick quotes and rip others out of context to change meaning.
Your lie about
> the measles death rate was disproved, your lie that vaccine was a > major factor in declining mortality during the 20th century was > disproved, and your promotion of chemotherapy on the basis of evidence > that doesn't exist has been exposed.
They were disproved only in your so-called mind.
The reason you and your fellow
> pharmnuts cannot cite published science proving your claims is because > it doesn't exist.
It exists. Like I said, posting it to you is a waste of time for the reasons given.
> >, use idiotsyncratic meanings of words,
> Oh? Give an example.
You have been called on that numerous times.
> > cherry pick quotes, and play other semantic games.
> Quoting statistics that prove you wrong are not "cherry picked,"
No, yanking statistics out of context from non-peer reviewed books is cherry picking.
they
> are facts contained in the medical literature.
I do not consider books medical literature. I would find you more worthy of discussion if you used material published in peer reviewed journals.
Whining that you can't
> be bothered to post published science supporting your own beliefs only > proves that you're a fraud.
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > WOW! What an exercise in PROJECTION
> > > > Unlike you, I cite my sources. Unlike you, a coward, I don't run > > > > away from the facts
> > > Unlike me, you torture logic...
> > No, I quote statistics proving you are full of shit.
> No, you cherry pick quotes and rip others out of context to change > meaning.
You spin in order to avoid admitting your lies. As proof, what are you now claiming was the historical measles death rate? You defended another pharmnut during the summer, remember?
> Your lie about
> > the measles death rate was disproved, your lie that vaccine was a > > major factor in declining mortality during the 20th century was > > disproved, and your promotion of chemotherapy on the basis of evidence > > that doesn't exist has been exposed.
> They were disproved only in your so-called mind.
So answer the question. What published data do you claim refutes the information I have cited?
> The reason you and your fellow
> > pharmnuts cannot cite published science proving your claims is because > > it doesn't exist.
> It exists.
Oh, that's right. You can't be bothered to share that information with anyone you fear would find fault with it. Never mind that you spend inordinate amounts of time bullshitting about everything else.
> Like I said, posting it to you is a waste of time for the > reasons given.
> > >, use idiotsyncratic meanings of words,
> > Oh? Give an example.
> You have been called on that numerous times.
By whom? Your fellow pharmnuts? Their claims were undone by simple entries in a dictionary.
> > > cherry pick quotes, and play other semantic games.
> > Quoting statistics that prove you wrong are not "cherry picked,"
> No, yanking statistics out of context from non-peer reviewed > books is cherry picking.
The book by Beaglehole referenced a peer reviewed study and was the source of data on the impact of vaccine for most of the twentieth century. Beaglehole is well respected at WHO, where he works. I suppose I should take the word of a pharmnut who whines that he doesn't have to produce a shred of evidence supporting his own bogus claims. You're a fraud, plain and simple.
> they
> > are facts contained in the medical literature.
> I do not consider books medical literature.
Of course you don't. Your claims can only be supported using junk science, mostly drug maker funded "reasearch." If I'm wrong, where are your sources?
> I would find you more > worthy of discussion if you used material published in peer reviewed > journals.
Liars such as yourself are in no position to find anyone "worthy of discussion." As for citations of peer reviewed science, I have done so many times. Quite often, I discussed studies submitted by your fellow pharmnuts as evidence for their own bogus claims. Their "analysis" of the available science was shameful. You yourself are so ignorant of medical science that it can't be overstated.
> Whining that you can't
> > be bothered to post published science supporting your own beliefs only > > proves that you're a fraud.
> You yanked that out of context.
It's actually a better argument than the one you made. And closer to the truth.
