From: Bob Officer on 3 Dec 2009 17:16
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:27:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
Bowditch <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>PeterB - Original <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>If you are suggesting that vaccine was responsible for declines in
>>Smallpox, please feel free to cite your source backing that up.
>Why? It would be somewhere in the 3631 articles found by a search for
>"smallpox vaccination" at PubMed, and you aren't prepared to look
But peaty has his single source called 'Beaglehole', which in turn
cites another single source. Has either of those sources passed peer
Posting the truth
From: PeterB - Original on 3 Dec 2009 17:37
On Dec 3, 7:22 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. No level of mercury is safe.
> >It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
> Why is it used in homeopathy?
It is based on the "like cures like" premise that if this substance in
greater amounts would cause the symptoms of disease to be treated, it
can also cure them. While I disagree with that premise, the tiny
amount of inorganic mercury used in homeopathics is usually topical
and presents no risk of mercury passing into the bloodstream. The
following fact sheet from Similasan might be somewhat representative
of this particular application:
From: PeterB - Original on 3 Dec 2009 18:14
On Dec 3, 5:10 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:24:42 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 10:21 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:54 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
> >> Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> >PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>The point being made is that
> >> >>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> >> >>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
> >> >Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
> >> >either wish to redefine or do not understand.
> >> add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
> >> own meaning: "Inherently"
> >Meaning you cannot intelligently respond to the point made that drugs,
> >and substances such as mercury, are inherently toxic.
> No peter you incredibly stupid. Water in small doses is not toxic.
> Water in large Doses are toxic.
Ignoring the insult, do you agree that organic mercury is toxic to
cells regardless how small the exposure may be? If not, what
published science supports your view?
> The concept in "inherently" is a red
> herring, (that is a type of fallacy in logic). The point is still the
> dose is what determines the toxicity of water.
If you disagree that mercury is inherently toxic, then you are saying
it is either chemically inert or supports cellular homeostasis at
some level of exposure. Please cite a source of evidence for that
p.s. changing the subject header only proves you have no argument.