> Smarter Than You wrote: >> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1XTum.3247$Jd7.298@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... >>> john wrote: >>>> Is there antifreeze in vaccines or not?
>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of >>>> antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. I >>>> can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, although I can't >>>> rule out the possibility that he just didn't know about it.) One >>>> website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker State >>>> Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are ethylene >>>> glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene or >>>> diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, >>>> Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name >>>> for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether. >>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different chemicals.
>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says.......
> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that is > what you believe?
Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough reason to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon dealers of death.
>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of >>>>> antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. I >>>>> can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, although I can't >>>>> rule out the possibility that he just didn't know about it.) One >>>>> website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker State >>>>> Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are ethylene >>>>> glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene or >>>>> diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, >>>>> Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name >>>>> for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether. >>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different chemicals.
>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that is >> what you believe?
> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough reason to > avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon dealers of death.
Nice ad hominem. Nonetheless, you did nothing to support your contention that ethylene glycol and 2-phenosyethanol are the same thing. They're not.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 10:12?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...@ariplex.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >> >On Sep 24, 6:44?pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> ><snip profanity and lying, spamming web sites>
>> Why can't Jan Drew snip her writing BEFORE wrtiting?
>lol.
>Yappy is losing it.
Jan Drew is pure hate and lies. Jan Drew is a Net stalker, who cannot keep her mouth shut. She is stalking. And she is a shill for criminals like Hulda Clark. How many patients did Jan Drew drive into the fangs of murderous creatures like Hulda Clark? We should make a body count...
FAQ about Jan Drew's advertizing for quackery *********************************************
Updated, March, 23rd., 2004
Hello,
in this and other news-groups a person who calls himself Jan Drew, is massively advertizing quackery.
Since 1999 this person dumps his paranoia into the net. Following the lies of Jan Drew can impose a serious threat to the health of you and your children. This FAQ is made as a warning, and to demonstrate which dangers arise from believing the many seemingly innocent and oh so charming and friendly people who claim : "I have done it. It works!"
Do never forget, that you can and must (!) complain against health fraud. Take your part in the defense against abuse of children and ill people!
The details about how you can do this in the USA you can find here :
B. The medical hystery and naturopath mafia advertizing of "Jan Drew"
C. Details 1. List of Web-Sites Jan Drew is advertizing for 2. Nicknames and persons involved in the Jan Drew scam 3. Cui bono ? Mercola disguises as "Jan Drew" 4. Jan Drew confesses his forgeries 5. A look at Jan Drew's list of lies with URLs (internet links) 6. Jan Drew works for Scientology 7. Jan Drew works for Hulda Clark 8. "$KaChing is Working!!" 9. "The Importance of Mass Name Calling" 10. Deadly fraud in the healthcare system 11. Jan Drew and the Attack on the WTC, Jan Drew's Antisemitism 12. Jan Drew's religious paranoia 13. The "Jew boy" case 14. Jan Drew, the stalker 15. Jan Drew insults, defames, libels... 16. Jan Drew Lied About Having Mercury Poisoning from Amalgams 17. The foul language of Jan Drew 18. Jan Drew's rhetorical warfare 19. Children die because of criminals like Jan Drew
D. Jan Drew is a shame to the human race
E. Why am I maintaining this FAQ ?
-----
A. Foreword by Mr. Rich #######################
<quote> From: [Mr. Rich] Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Subject: Newbie Alert :Tactics Of Jan Drew Message-ID: <k69l40p1f6tbg83kgca8efu2vqedkk2...@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 04:28:15 GMT
Jan Drew, the most prolific poster in this newsgroup has an agenda. Her agenda is to promote alternative medicine while demonizing conventional medicine. To Jan Drew the ends justify the means. This means that she will lie, deceive, manipulate, distort, bear false witness in order to achieve her objective.
Jan Drew is completely unable to discuss any topic with anyone who disagrees with her. Her tactic is to try to discredit them by any means she can. She may do a Google search and discover that a poster is gay and then use that to discredit them. She may discover that a poster is of the Jewish faith and use that to discredit them. She may just brand someone with whom she disagrees as a member of organized medicine to discredit them.
Jan Drew often gives the impression that she is either psychotic/delusional or has some cognitive dysfunction that results in her being very concrete in her thinking. She often appears not to understand figurative speech, analogies, etc. This is all an act. Jan Drew uses figurative speech and analogies. The reason that she appears not to understand them is because when someone uses analogies to demonstrate a point Jan DRew is unable to counter that point, so instead of remaining silent she simply makes a personal attack against the person falsely accusing them of diversion or changing the subject.
Jan Drew gives the impression that she is delusional about having mercury poisoning by amalgams because she persists in this belief despite my having demonstrated quite clearly that her history indicates that psychologic factors were the key to understanding why her PN deteriorated and why it suddenly improved. I have little doubt that Jan DRew realizes that she never had mercury poisoning but this does not stop her shilling.
Her claiming that she knows it was the mercury because she did not start to feel better until after the mercury level dropped is a clear indication that she understands the importance of the temporal relationship between her getting better and mercury level dropping. But Jan also clearly knows that she began to regain her health not only before her mercury level dropped but after it likely ROSE!!!
Jan Drew is psychopathic liar. She repeatedly lies and bears false witness against others in her malicious attempt to promote alternoquacks. She says that I am stalking her which is a complete lie. She says I lied about her amalgam history which is complete lie. But Jan Drew keeps repeating these lies hoping that if she repeats them enough that people will believe them. She is evil and despicable.
Jan DRew repeatedly makes new posts having absolutely nothing to do with alternative medicine but instead making attacks against conventional medicine. She has made countless posts focusing on the negative aspects of conventional medicine. Not ONCE has she made a NEW post talking about anything positive about conventional medicine. She is a propaganda machine. And she does not care if the attacks against conventional medicine are factual or not. IF they are negative about CM then Jan Drew uses them in her propaganda.
Jan Drew says that the reason that she posts negative things about CM is because that is the reason why people are turning to AM. But the truth is that Jan Drew is trying to drive people away from CM and to AM by her lies. She specifically tells people to only go to alternative dentists. She discourages people from going on medication that only cover up the problem when she herself takes two medications that only cover up her problem. She is a complete hypocrite.
Jan Drew also tries to intrude on people's personal lives in order to get them to stop posting here. She makes complaints to ISP's in an attempt to get her adversary's account closed. She post people's name, address and phone number, calls then an antisemitic slur and tells people not to do business with them. She posts the private information of physicians who post here again in an attempt to harass them.
Jan collects posts that people have made from several years back to repost here, completely out of context and unrelated to the discussion simply to create diversion and to try to discredit the person. Watch how she does it again with me while pretending that she is not reading my post after lying about putting me in her kill file.
Skeptics need to be aware that if they post under their real name that Jan Drew will do whatever she can to negatively intrude on their personal lives. She likely spends most of her waking hours searching on Google to find any dirt she can on the skeptics and she will then post it here to discredit them.
Jan has repeatedly contacted my ISP accusing me of stalking her. But the real stalker is Jan Drew who is attempting to discover my true identity and address/phone number. Jan Drew is a very angry person and potentially dangerous. She will stop at nothing to prevent her critics from expressing their opinions here.
Poster beware.
Aloha,
Rich
PS: I absolutely GUARANTEE that Jan Drew will start a new post with my name/tactics. Just watch.
But she won't directly address any of the issues here. And her many enablers will also just make personal attacks and not address the issues either. Just watch. It is all so predictable.
PPS: If anyone is making a FAQ about JD feel free to use any of the above in it. ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
The best defense to logic is ignorance </quote>
B. The Medical Hystery of "Jan Drew" #####################################
Many information wars in the net are committed by people who claim to
a) have suffered, b) then were saved, c) by the oh, so wonderful healer/doctor/medicament/treatment XYZ...
Jan Drew is one of these information war criminals. The history of what has happened to him can be proven wrong.
Mr Rich sums up the history of the hystery of Jan Drew's alledged illnesses and healings.
Why is it so important to write about this ? It is important to show the innocent reader what powers and whose financial greed REALLY act in the "healer" scene, which methods of rhetorical warfare are used, and how they are used.
I have a section dedicated to analyzing the tricks and strategies of the naturopath mafia : http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_rhet.htm (Sorry, no translation to English available.)
Why is it so important to write about this ? Because it will save the lives of many people who would die or would suffer terribly for the rest of their lives if they or their parents were to fall for the lies of the naturopath mafia.
This is what we need : Fortified Medicine!: http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_wehr.htm (Sorry, no translation to English available. Help by a translator would be appreciated.)
AND: Do not forget, that you can and must (!) complain against health fraud. Take your part in the defense against abuse of children and ill people!
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 10:12?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...@ariplex.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >> >On Sep 24, 6:44?pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> ><snip profanity and lying, spamming web sites>
>> Why can't Jan Drew snip her writing BEFORE wrtiting? Would be a good idea as she >> is too stupid to count to2...
> Results 1 - 10 of about 101 for happy.oys...@ariplex.com is too >stupid to count to2. (0.53 seconds)
Jan Drew is too damned stupid. An amusing incident happened in 2009, when a person, i.e. Jan Drewm, who had shot more than 60,000 postings into the net, demonstrated, that she even is too stupid to count to 2.
>> > Posted that Noah his son's birthday was 11/26/96 (my birthday).
>> > He has numerous posts that are [person who is stalked by Jan Drew for years]
>> > 2009- 1946 = 64 -in November. My math is not wrong.
>> > Thus, [person who is stalked by Jan Drew for years] is a liar.
>Since November 2009 is in the future, I will not be 63 until then.
>You are amazingly stupid.
>November 26th 2009 is in 2009. >2009-1946 YOU will be 64, not 63. You are 63 now. On November 26, 2009 you >will be 64. >Period.
>Thanks for proving you are a liar again. >And, I am correct. You and you alone posted your birthday.
To make things a bit easier to see, this is a table of events.
A person born on 26.11. 1946 is on
26.11.1946 born 26.11.1947 1 year old 26.11.1948 2 years old 26.11.1949 3 years old 26.11.1950 4 years old 26.11.1951 5 years old 26.11.1952 6 years old 26.11.1953 7 years old 26.11.1954 8 years old 26.11.1955 9 years old 26.11.1956 10 years old 26.11.1957 11 years old 26.11.1958 12 years old 26.11.1959 13 years old 26.11.1960 14 years old 26.11.1961 15 years old 26.11.1962 16 years old 26.11.1963 17 years old 26.11.1964 18 years old 26.11.1965 19 years old 26.11.1966 20 years old 26.11.1967 21 years old 26.11.1968 22 years old 26.11.1969 23 years old 26.11.1970 24 years old 26.11.1971 25 years old 26.11.1972 26 years old 26.11.1973 27 years old 26.11.1974 28 years old 26.11.1975 29 years old 26.11.1976 30 years old 26.11.1977 31 years old 26.11.1978 32 years old 26.11.1979 33 years old 26.11.1980 34 years old 26.11.1981 35 years old 26.11.1982 36 years old 26.11.1983 37 years old 26.11.1984 38 years old 26.11.1985 39 years old 26.11.1986 40 years old 26.11.1987 41 years old 26.11.1988 42 years old 26.11.1989 43 years old 26.11.1990 44 years old 26.11.1991 45 years old 26.11.1992 46 years old 26.11.1993 47 years old 26.11.1994 48 years old 26.11.1995 49 years old 26.11.1996 50 years old 26.11.1997 51 years old 26.11.1998 52 years old 26.11.1999 53 years old 26.11.2000 54 years old 26.11.2001 55 years old 26.11.2002 56 years old 26.11.2003 57 years old 26.11.2004 58 years old 26.11.2005 59 years old 26.11.2006 60 years old 26.11.2007 61 years old 26.11.2008 62 years old 26.11.2009 63 years old ************************ 26.11.2010 64 years old
On the 26.11. 2009 that person WILL BECOME 63 years old! ********************************************************
But, see above, Jan Drew still insists:
>2009-1946 = 63. On oivember 26 of this year he will be 64.
Now, a person born on 26.11. 1946 is on the very day "26.11.1946" BORN.
1 year later it will be 1 year old:
26.11.1947 1 year old
According to my timeline at 26.11.2009 it will be 63 years old.
But Jan Drew insists on
On oivember 26 of this year he will be 64.
Will Jan Drew be able to point where in my timeline there is an error?
Will Jan Drew be able to explain it?
Or will she, as usual, bring nothing but more lies, insults, forgeries, or other mess?
The answer is: Jan Drew still insists on her ***OBVIOUS*** false claim. So Jan Drew is obviously not able to count to 2.
Would you try to discuss with a person who cannot even count to 2? --
>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of >>>>>> antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. >>>>>> I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, although I >>>>>> can't rule out the possibility that he just didn't know about it.) >>>>>> One website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker State >>>>>> Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are ethylene >>>>>> glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene or >>>>>> diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, >>>>>> Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name >>>>>> for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether. >>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different chemicals.
>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that is >>> what you believe?
>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough reason >> to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon dealers of >> death.
No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE BAD FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think you want to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a doctor?
>>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of >>>>>>> antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. >>>>>>> I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, although I >>>>>>> can't rule out the possibility that he just didn't know about it.) >>>>>>> One website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker State >>>>>>> Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are ethylene >>>>>>> glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene or >>>>>>> diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, >>>>>>> Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name >>>>>>> for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether. >>>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different chemicals.
>>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that is >>>> what you believe?
>>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough reason >>> to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon dealers of >>> death. > No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE BAD > FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think you want > to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a doctor?
Well, you were making false claims that 2-phenosyethanol is ethylene glycol. They are different molecules. Rather than admit that you were incorrect, you chose to attack me. If you are making false claims about the ingredients, I will point that out.
Second, I totally disagree about whether or not the vaccine is good for people's health. People who get the vaccine are less likely to get influenza, get serious influenza and to pass the illness along to other people. The data show the vaccine save lives.
>>>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>>>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>>>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number >>>>>>>> of antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>>>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" >>>>>>>> gambit. I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, >>>>>>>> although I can't rule out the possibility that he just didn't know >>>>>>>> about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker >>>>>>>> State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are >>>>>>>> ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no >>>>>>>> ethylene or diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>>>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines >>>>>>>> Infanrix, Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, >>>>>>>> the other name for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl >>>>>>>> ether. >>>>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different >>>>>>> chemicals.
>>>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>>>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that >>>>> is what you believe?
>>>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough >>>> reason to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon >>>> dealers of death. >> No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE BAD >> FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think you >> want to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a doctor?
> Well, you were making false claims that 2-phenosyethanol is ethylene > glycol. They are different molecules. Rather than admit that you were > incorrect, you chose to attack me. If you are making false claims about > the ingredients, I will point that out.
> Second, I totally disagree about whether or not the vaccine is good for > people's health. People who get the vaccine are less likely to get > influenza, get serious influenza and to pass the illness along to other > people. The data show the vaccine save lives.
Jeffy, I did not start this thread. And you can stuff your disagreement. It pleases me that people like you do not agree with me. It shows that I am not brainwashed. I will take my chances without the poison. You may take your chances with the poison.
>>>>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He >>>>>>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the >>>>>>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number >>>>>>>>> of antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to >>>>>>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" >>>>>>>>> gambit. I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, >>>>>>>>> although I can't rule out the possibility that he just didn't know >>>>>>>>> about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker >>>>>>>>> State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are >>>>>>>>> ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no >>>>>>>>> ethylene or diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's >>>>>>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines >>>>>>>>> Infanrix, Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, >>>>>>>>> the other name for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl >>>>>>>>> ether. >>>>>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different >>>>>>>> chemicals.
>>>>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>>>>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if that >>>>>> is what you believe?
>>>>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough >>>>> reason to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon >>>>> dealers of death. >>> No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE BAD >>> FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think you >>> want to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a doctor?
>> Well, you were making false claims that 2-phenosyethanol is ethylene >> glycol. They are different molecules. Rather than admit that you were >> incorrect, you chose to attack me. If you are making false claims about >> the ingredients, I will point that out.
>> Second, I totally disagree about whether or not the vaccine is good for >> people's health. People who get the vaccine are less likely to get >> influenza, get serious influenza and to pass the illness along to other >> people. The data show the vaccine save lives.
> Jeffy,
The name is Jeff, not Jeffy.
>I did not start this thread.
Where did I say you did.
>And you can stuff your disagreement.
How kind of you.
> It > pleases me that people like you do not agree with me. It shows that I am not > brainwashed.
However, it does show that your nick name is incorrect.
> I will take my chances without the poison. You may take your > chances with the poison.
I will take my chances with an improved immune system and much less chance of getting influenza.
>>>>>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>> He especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in >>>>>>>>>> the interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a >>>>>>>>>> number of antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively >>>>>>>>>> managed to restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in >>>>>>>>>> vaccines" gambit. I can only hope that it is due to intellectual >>>>>>>>>> honesty, although I can't rule out the possibility that he just >>>>>>>>>> didn't know about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS >>>>>>>>>> about Quaker State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients >>>>>>>>>> of which are ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? >>>>>>>>>> There's no ethylene or diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>> It's called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines >>>>>>>>>> Infanrix, Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, >>>>>>>>>> the other name for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl >>>>>>>>>> ether. >>>>>>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different >>>>>>>>> chemicals.
>>>>>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>>>>>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if >>>>>>> that is what you believe?
>>>>>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough >>>>>> reason to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon >>>>>> dealers of death. >>>> No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE >>>> BAD FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think >>>> you want to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a >>>> doctor?
>>> Well, you were making false claims that 2-phenosyethanol is ethylene >>> glycol. They are different molecules. Rather than admit that you were >>> incorrect, you chose to attack me. If you are making false claims about >>> the ingredients, I will point that out.
>>> Second, I totally disagree about whether or not the vaccine is good for >>> people's health. People who get the vaccine are less likely to get >>> influenza, get serious influenza and to pass the illness along to other >>> people. The data show the vaccine save lives.
>> Jeffy,
> The name is Jeff, not Jeffy.
>>I did not start this thread.
> Where did I say you did.
>>And you can stuff your disagreement.
> How kind of you.
>> It pleases me that people like you do not agree with me. It shows that I >> am not >> brainwashed.
> However, it does show that your nick name is incorrect.
>> I will take my chances without the poison. You may take your chances with >> the poison.
> I will take my chances with an improved immune system and much less chance > of getting influenza.
In your opinion. Good, now perhaps you can shut up.
In message <jaCdna1xqLowNibXnZ2dnUVZ8n2dn...@bt.com>, john wrote:
> The MSDS on car antifreeze, the regular ethylene glycol, says that the > lethal oral dose to kill 50% of rats is 4700 mg/kg. The MSDS on > 2-Phenoxyethanol, the vaccine ethylene glycol, says the lethal oral dose to > kill 50% of rats is 1260 mg/kg. Comparing apples to apples, the vaccine > ethylene glycol is a lot more toxic than car antifreeze--to rats anyway.
> The debate shouldn't be on whether ethylene glycol exists in vaccines. It > does, period. The debate should be on whether this type of ethylene glycol > and this amount of ethylene glycol can cause the same adverse reactions as > those normally associated with car antifreeze.
Money on the table, dimwit. Make it worth my while and I'll drink over 400 grams of polyethylene glycol in the course of an evening.
Money where your mouth is. I'll cover up to $3000 in bets over whether I'm still posting a week later -- and I'll get the PEG consumption witnessed.
-- | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+
>>>>>>>>>>> In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses >>>>>>>>>>> anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>> He >>>>>>>>>>> especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on >>>>>>>>>>> assertions regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been >>>>>>>>>>> repeating that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a >>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>> of antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> restrain himself from repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" >>>>>>>>>>> gambit. I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, >>>>>>>>>>> although I can't rule out the possibility that he just didn't >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>> about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS about >>>>>>>>>>> Quaker >>>>>>>>>>> State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are >>>>>>>>>>> ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no >>>>>>>>>>> ethylene or diethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>> Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>> It's >>>>>>>>>>> called 2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines >>>>>>>>>>> Infanrix, Deptacel, Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, >>>>>>>>>>> the other name for 2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL >>>>>>>>>>> monophenyl >>>>>>>>>>> ether. >>>>>>>>>> 2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different >>>>>>>>>> chemicals.
>>>>>>>>> A fake, wannabe "doc" says....... >>>>>>>> Ad hominem. Why don't you show how they are the same chemical if >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> is what you believe?
>>>>>>> Jeff, the fact that you support them is by far, more than enough >>>>>>> reason to avoid getting it. IMHO you and those like you are demon >>>>>>> dealers of death. >>>>> No need to debate what is in them . IF YOU PUSH THEM, IMHO, THEY ARE >>>>> BAD >>>>> FOR EVERYONES HEALTH. Is that clear enough for you ? I don't think you >>>>> want to try forcing them. Now, when are you going to become a doctor?
>>>> Well, you were making false claims that 2-phenosyethanol is ethylene >>>> glycol. They are different molecules. Rather than admit that you were >>>> incorrect, you chose to attack me. If you are making false claims about >>>> the ingredients, I will point that out.
>>>> Second, I totally disagree about whether or not the vaccine is good for >>>> people's health. People who get the vaccine are less likely to get >>>> influenza, get serious influenza and to pass the illness along to other >>>> people. The data show the vaccine save lives.
>>> Jeffy,
>>The name is Jeff, not Jeffy.
> sTools likes to use names that way. He thinks using a diminutive form > like Jeffy or Bobby places a person in a lesser position to what he > hopes is a superior position.
>>>I did not start this thread.
>>Where did I say you did.
> Many of ther users in this group seem to think the OP has some > special control or the thread.
> It is a steady stream of attempted control.
>>>And you can stuff your disagreement.
>>How kind of you.
> I suggest not using unwashed wool. The oils often contain some nasty > "bugs"
>>> It >>> pleases me that people like you do not agree with me. It shows that I >>> am not >>> brainwashed.
>>However, it does show that your nick name is incorrect.
>>> I will take my chances without the poison. You may take your >>> chances with the poison.
>>I will take my chances with an improved immune system and much less >>chance of getting influenza.
> as we all should.
> --
PLEASE PLEASE!!!! Bob, get your shot! PLEASE do it! Do it soon. Thank you.
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 10:11?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...@ariplex.com> wrote:
>> oivember
>Whatever *oivember* is.
That was a really bad idea. And it makes us all laugh. Because Jan Drew shot her own foot. It was Jan Drew who had written it. See the marked "#" line:
<quote> From: Jan Drew <drewja...@gmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,alt.suppo rt.breast-implant,sci.med.dentistry Subject: Re: Facts about JAN DREW, the Net stalker and agent for the naturopathic mafia Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4dfd2398-82be-46e2-b77f-94e0daa4eefb@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 19, 6:08?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...@ariplex.com> wrote:
> >> >Please do not stoop to her level. It diminishes anything else you do.
> >> >I have been aware of much of what you post for years, but have never > >> >posted about it.
> >> >When you do this, you lose the moral high ground.
> >> I understand you very well. The only problem is that your way to handle the > >> problems posed by Jan Drew will not stop her. Actually, they did not stop her > >> since at least 2001, according to a posting I just saw.
> >Now, I am a her. ?Which is female, and means you lied.
> Well, Jan Drew, a person who is too stupid to count to 2, talks about lies...?
That another lie and insult. The fact is Mark Probert posted his age as 11/26. I have proven he used 1946 in his email address.
2009-1946 = 63. On oivember 26 of this year he will be 64. ###########################################################
> >> The situation is like with a child who hits you again and again with his foot > >> and each time yells "HIT ME!, HIT ME! You are not allowed to do that, ha!, ha!, > >> ha!"
> >> This type of behavior is quite common and would go on forever. But Jan Drew is > >> no child, and to allow her to hit you (by all the time pointing at "moral > >> standards") is EXACTLY what she is abusing.
His is responsibile for his own profanity, his calling names,and hararasing. The same as you are.
> >> You have to realize that this is war, not a polite discussion with polite > >> people. As the police does not care about doers like Jan Drew, self-defense is > >> important.
Oh, I just bet you are scared. You are the one who said it was a holy war.
> >> I have seen several regular members here during the last years, who were > >> attacked by Jan Drew. I phoned with 2 of them. You are not the only victim of > >> Jan Drew.
I thought you wanted everything in public. Most like you and Mark have been busy emailing each other.
> >> Shall free speech be smashed to pieces by some criminals? I don't think so.
What criminals?
> >> But free speech depends on civilized behavior - and this is exactly what Jan > >> Drew does NOT have. Would you leave your house to someone stalking you? I don't > >> think so.
> >> So why would you let such a person stalk you in public, defame you, ruin your > >> work by calling your employer? I don't believe this to be a good idea.
> >LOL. ?I have never called Mark Probert's employer. ?He is self > >employed.
> Mark Probert is not the only victim of Jan Drew....
And, your proof is?
> >> But I understand your point of view, and - as you are helpless - I dare to > >> intervene.
> >> Ill-minded persons like Jan Drew must be exposed in public. That is the only way > >> to handle them. One reason is that they flood the net with false medical claims, > >> which can lead to the death of children and adults.
> >Nothing I have posted are false medical claims. What is it that can lead to this death of children and alults?
> Oh, the Jan Drew lies again...
Prove it.
> >> To prevent damage the real driving forces of persons like Jan Drew must be > >> shown, so that people will realize, what a danger she is, and that it is better > >> NOT to follow all her lies and claims.
People can make their own decisions.
> >Now, I am a she. ?Which means you have lied over, and over, and over.
> No, Jan Drew lies again. I wrote, and anybody can see that, that Jan Drew does > not prove anything, not even that he/she is female. This is why I chose to say > "he".
Wrong. You posted *her*.
> >> These things are complicated as they include a lot of mass psychology AND as > >> everything is handled IN PUBLIC.
> >Then, why did you make phone calls?
> Why should I phone with a person who is even too stupid to count to 2???
ZZzz,
> I only talk with interesting people.
Like Mark S Probert.....
> >> This is why I explain the backgrounds; people have to understand the goings-on.
Your explantions are ridiculous. As usual.
> >> Aribert Deckers
</quote>
Jan Drew is damned stupid. She cannot count to 2. She shots her own foot. She advertises for the criminal Hulda Clark. She denies vaccination. She abuses the name of god.
Those who believe her can shoot themselves rightaway. . --
> That was a really bad idea. And it makes us all laugh. Because Jan Drew shot her > own foot. It was Jan Drew who had written it. See the marked "#" line:
She should have shot herself in her head. If she did, there would have been no damage.
|
