From: john on

"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, while
your only evidence against Butler is slagging off her alleged lack of brains

while the evidence on Whale is such that you woo brains have to invent a
logical fallacy, Scopies law, to deal with it


From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:27:15 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

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

> Seem to be about 30 with MD or MB after their name, many of them
>> unfortunately appear to be dead, some for nearly a century. Some have
>> been entered incorrectly. Prof O'Leary is listed as a "vaccine
>> critic" when he is nothing of the sort. Dr Charles Shepherd is also
>> listed as a vaccine critic when he is not. Others are Homeopaths.
>> Others are a mixture of non-medical PhD holders misleadingly labeled
>> "Dr" and naturopaths.
>>
>> Not terribly impressive, and certainly "trashing" nothing.

>Better than your ragtag army of pharma boys like Offit.
>
>You missed the smallpox ones http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox_c.html
>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox13.html

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


From: john on

"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



From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> You really do have to rely upon some remarkable pond life don't you?
> Scheiber is a retired Paleontologist of dubious ability and honesty.


that is ad hominem. And you have never proven any dishonesty, while we
document vast evidence your industry is built on it.


From: Peter Parry on
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
concerned. Her writings are so replete with blatant errors that they
have been widely ridiculed. Incidentally, as you seem attached to
the phrase "Ad Hominem", what you have said above _is_ an example of
such, as are many other comments you make. A personal or Ad Hominem
attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for
evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of
"reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person
making the claim and not the claim itself.

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.

>while
>your only evidence against Butler is slagging off her alleged lack of brains

Where did I say that? You should at least attempt to read what was
said. What I criticised was her complete lack of professional
qualifications, education, training and experience. She produces
facile journalistic sound bites but no science. 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.

>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."

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.
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