From: D. C. Sessions on
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> Oh ORAC!! �You mean the guy who attacked a practicing
> Pediatrician MD named Dr. Gordon just because Gordon
> made some critical remarks about the vaccination industry.

You still haven't figured out the difference between
pointing out an error and attacking the person. Not
surprising, since your only mode of argumentation is
the latter.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: D. C. Sessions on
Mark Probert wrote:

> When Gordon posted to Orac's blog, Gordon posted some statements that
> demonstrated that, although he is a practising pediatrician, he is not
> too well informed about vaccines. In fact, the errors were so
> fundamental, that all of his statements must be called into question.

Like the formaldehyde bit?

My favorite is still his admission that he picks the facts that
suit his agenda, although his "nobody wants to talk about
acceptable risks" from a pediatrician is a pretty damning
admission too. I notice he kept far, far away from my replies
to that one. I can see why he wouldn't be anxious to call any
more attention to his admitted dereliction of professional
duty.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: Mark Probert on
On Sep 14, 4:06 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > When Gordon posted to Orac's blog, Gordon posted some statements that
> > demonstrated that, although he is a practising pediatrician, he is not
> > too well informed about vaccines. In fact, the errors were so
> > fundamental, that all of his statements must be called into question.
>
> Like the formaldehyde bit?
>
> My favorite is still his admission that he picks the facts that
> suit his agenda, although his "nobody wants to talk about
> acceptable risks" from a pediatrician is a pretty damning
> admission too.  I notice he kept far, far away from my replies
> to that one.  I can see why he wouldn't be anxious to call any
> more attention to his admitted dereliction of professional
> duty.

I would prefer to use each of his statements one at a time, in
surgical precision. Or, like this AM, with ten 3 round groups in a 3"
circle at 750 yards. Each group took less than 20seconds from the
first round.
From: Jan Drew on
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/08/dr-jay-gordon-r.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/orac_h.html





From: Mike on
David Wright wrote:
>> U.S.Government with all its legal and law-enforcement powers could not
>> track the income of Al Capone, do you think I can pull such a trick???
>
> They put him in jail for income tax evasion, which strongly suggests
> that they could indeed do it. So there goes one claim up in smoke.

They could not track the source of his income.

>
>> What I can do is post what I consider the evidence based on the posts.
>
> Oh, right. The "evidence" being that you don't like what he says.
>

I can repeat. The evidence in the case of Mark P is that after
expressing his opposition to vaccinating children without parents'
knowledge (see, I liked what he said) he on several occasions
refused to disapprove the provision of New York bill 10942 that
prescribed that.
This looks weird. An assumption that he is not free to voice
a negative opinion about such a bill would explain that.
This explanation may sound far-fetched but I am not aware
of a better explanation.

In your case, I have no evidence and I am not saying anything
about you.

> Whoopee.
>
> Based on the same sort of "evidence," *you* are a pharma shill,
> planted here by Big Pharma to make alties look like cretins.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "John McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time. That's not a
> maverick - that's a sidekick!" -- Bob Casey Jr.
>
>