From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:57:30 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message

>> Those are mostly from the 1870's, one from 1799. I think you will
>> find science has moved on a bit since then.

>It's called history, and smallpox vax started around 1790's, and we all know
>why you want to forget the first 100 years of that

There are many parts of early medical history which are now
sufficiently outlandish as to have no relevance to modern medicine.
Surgery in the 1800's bears little relevance to the same skill today.
The same is true of most human endeavours.

The historical perspective is interesting of course in that it shows
how learning can develop and in particular how the scientific method
initially developed by Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes can bring about
progress.

History can inform such as when you compare the progress of
conventional medicine with its continuous learning and improvement to
that of the likes of Homeopathy where unproven ideas from the late
1700's which should long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of
history hang on being followed blindly in a quasi religious fashion
rather than evolving.

From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:ht16k5ld28mrj342lj0ui8ppvua137r937(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:57:30 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> Those are mostly from the 1870's, one from 1799. I think you will
>>> find science has moved on a bit since then.
>
>>It's called history, and smallpox vax started around 1790's, and we all
>>know
>>why you want to forget the first 100 years of that
>
> There are many parts of early medical history which are now
> sufficiently outlandish as to have no relevance to modern medicine.
> Surgery in the 1800's bears little relevance to the same skill today.
> The same is true of most human endeavours.
>
> The historical perspective is interesting of course in that it shows
> how learning can develop and in particular how the scientific method
> initially developed by Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes can bring about
> progress.
>
> History can inform such as when you compare the progress of
> conventional medicine with its continuous learning and improvement to
> that of the likes of Homeopathy where unproven ideas from the late
> 1700's which should long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of
> history hang on being followed blindly in a quasi religious fashion
> rather than evolving.
>

avoidance of the first 100 years of smallpox vax.

This is 1918 http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html so you can imagine
what the previous 118 years were like, and don't foget Jenner is hailed as a
hero and vax successful from day one

vaccination should have been consigned to the quackpot ideas of the 19th
century, but too much money was involved
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox20.html

and allopaths still claim an 18% death rate when Sydenham had a 2% rate in
1600's, what does that tell you about your scientific method bullshit?

and Semmelweis found out the true story of medical method
http://www.whale.to/a/semmelweis_h.html his ideas were rejected for over 10
years

just like the vitamin C cure for infections, 59 years now, so save us the
religuius medical method bullshit

"In a recent letter from Dr. A. Ward of the Pathology Department, University
of Hong Kong, in which he requests permission to use some of our findings in
his textbook on immunology, Dr. Ward states: "I again like you do not
worship Louis Pasteur and I consider Edward Jenner to be one of the great
criminals of history.' "---Dr Kalokerinos


From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:f6t5k55kg3c4edkhquhbq90fp7asr2b0i3(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:31:16 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> Is this the best evidence you can produce?
>
>>Your best evidence is some lone pharma Chiro slagging off Scheibner,
>
> He is hardly a lone voice where that particular individual is

he is a lone voice as far as anyone without an obvious conflict of interest.
The only other one on note is Ernst. The rest have a professional and
financial interest like Offit, Orac, Barrett etc

> You cannot attack what Morgan said because it is obviously and
> provably correct, so you attack the individual instead. Unfortunately
> this trait is all too common amongst the anti-vaccination community.

Absolute bollocks. Go ahead and prove it. And talk about hyprocacy, after
you just slagged off Scheibner and Butler, but we get to expect that in
vaccine zealots. From memory Morgan did a textbook page on ad hominem re
Scheibner and the rest

>What I criticised was her complete lack of professional
> qualifications, education, training and experience. She produces
> facile journalistic sound bites but no science.

Basic ad hominem, whatever her qualifications they bear no relation to what
she actually says, quite apart from the fact she has more brains than most
of you lot put together as any perusal of her work will show anyone
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler3.html


>As with Scheibner
> what she produces is riddled with error. Her various conspiracy
> theories would, I assume, appeal to you but to most they are becoming
> increasingly ridiculous.

Like I said, expose what she has said and produce it, we can all say stuff
like that but prove it.
Conspiracy theory is just a buzz phrase, basic ad hominem word game
http://www.whale.to/a/conspiracy.html
>
>>while the evidence on Whale is such that you woo brains have to invent a
>>logical fallacy, Scopies law, to deal with it
>
> There is no error of reasoning in Scopies Law. As for evidence on the
> site it refers to would that be the evidence of extra-terrestrials, of
> mind control via mobile phone or of "chemtrails"? Would it be the
> "evidence" of Orgonite, the design of the "Holy Hand Grenade". Is it
> the "evidence" that mobile phone base stations are for destroying the
> atmosphere, making everyone sick and targeting individuals in
> conjunction with GPS? Is it the claim that "Nutritional medicine
> could replace over 98% of Allopathic medicine and cure most diseases
> without any side effects like death and autism."

Simple logical fallacy, even if I believed in little green men living in my
attaic, it bears no relationship to the medical information, but that is
your main argument. As for nutritional med replacing allopathic--simple
really as any inquiring unbiased mind can see
http://www.whale.to/w/ortho.html


> That your site is fascinating in a sort of gothic horror way is
> undeniable, that it is a source of knowledge or science is unlikely.
> On the other hand, that any lawyer would be so desperate as to quote
> it in a court in support of their argument would also appear to be
> rather improbable, but apparently that happened in the USA even if
> they did lose their case.

So you say but we all know what you say that.


From: Happy Oyster on
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:50:35 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:ht16k5ld28mrj342lj0ui8ppvua137r937(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:57:30 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Those are mostly from the 1870's, one from 1799. I think you will
>>>> find science has moved on a bit since then.
>>
>>>It's called history, and smallpox vax started around 1790's, and we all
>>>know
>>>why you want to forget the first 100 years of that
>>
>> There are many parts of early medical history which are now
>> sufficiently outlandish as to have no relevance to modern medicine.
>> Surgery in the 1800's bears little relevance to the same skill today.
>> The same is true of most human endeavours.
>>
>> The historical perspective is interesting of course in that it shows
>> how learning can develop and in particular how the scientific method
>> initially developed by Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes can bring about
>> progress.
>>
>> History can inform such as when you compare the progress of
>> conventional medicine with its continuous learning and improvement to
>> that of the likes of Homeopathy where unproven ideas from the late
>> 1700's which should long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of
>> history hang on being followed blindly in a quasi religious fashion
>> rather than evolving.
>>
>
>avoidance of the first 100 years of smallpox vax.


That is bullshit.
--
Die volle H�rte: http://www.kindersprechstunde.at
***************************************************************
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5710
From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:50:35 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote

>> History can inform such as when you compare the progress of
>> conventional medicine with its continuous learning and improvement to
>> that of the likes of Homeopathy where unproven ideas from the late
>> 1700's which should long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of
>> history hang on being followed blindly in a quasi religious fashion
>> rather than evolving.

>avoidance of the first 100 years of smallpox vax.

There is nothing to avoid. Why are you so concerned about events in
the late 1800's? Had you had your appendix out in those days you
would probably have died. Should this be a cause of concern for
someone facing an appendectomy today? I can understand Homeopaths
being concerned because they still work from a textbook written in the
early 1800's but no one else does.

>This is 1918 http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html so you can imagine
>what the previous 118 years were like, and don't foget Jenner is hailed as a
>hero and vax successful from day one

That is because it was. It has become far more successful since then.
You need to understand that a science is a continuous process of
improvement and learning.

>and allopaths still claim an 18% death rate when Sydenham had a 2% rate in
>1600's, what does that tell you about your scientific method bullshit?

It tells me one should not rely upon partial records from 1600. Just
how complete and accurate do you think a document from 1600 is likely
to be?

>and Semmelweis found out the true story of medical method
>http://www.whale.to/a/semmelweis_h.html his ideas were rejected for over 10
>years

But eventually accepted after Pasteur, 15 years later confirmed the
germ theory. Science is not necessarily a straight track with no
bumps but it is the only way of achieving real progress.

>just like the vitamin C cure for infections, 59 years now, so save us the
>religuius medical method bullshit

Which vitamin C cure for infections is this?

>"In a recent letter from Dr. A. Ward of the Pathology Department, University
>of Hong Kong, in which he requests permission to use some of our findings in
>his textbook on immunology, Dr. Ward states: "I again like you do not
>worship Louis Pasteur and I consider Edward Jenner to be one of the great
>criminals of history.' "---Dr Kalokerinos

Even assuming this is true it is completely meaningless out of
context. Which letter? Where can it be found? What was it
discussing? Who is Dr A Ward? There is no Dr Ward listed at the
Pathology Dept at Hong Kong University, there appears to be no
textbook on immunology written by an A Ward.

We know Kalokerinos is someone who believes vaccination is a
deliberate process of genocide carried out under the auspices of the
World Health Organization and the Save the Children Fund.who, he
thinks, "put Hitler and Stalin in the shade" when it came to
deliberate and intentional mass killings. He bases his claims on the
idea that needles are reused (they are generally not) in order to
deliberately spread AIDS. Forty odd years ago he also successfully
diagnosed and treated vitamin C deficiency in Australian aboriginal
children whose "natural" diet wasn't providing sufficient.

Once again your infatuation with attacking people rather than
addressing the science is letting you down.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Homeopathic Stars
Next: Visit this website