Medical License Breached
in [Immunology]
|
From: Peter Parry on 28 Jul 2008 06:42 On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:46:07 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote: >Ron Law >Risk & Policy Analyst Would this self appointed "Risk & Policy Analyst" of "Juderon Associates" and "Beyond Alternative Solutions" be the same Ron Law, a food supplement lobbyist, business management lecturer, and ex-Director of the NZ "Nutritional Foods Association" who is also an anti-vaccination campaigner and is railing against his "supplements" being subject to quality control and proven efficacy standards? (What is a non-nutritional food - McDonalds?)
From: Mike on 28 Jul 2008 21:56 Peter Parry wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:46:07 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> Ron Law >> Risk & Policy Analyst > > Would this self appointed "Risk & Policy Analyst" of "Juderon > Associates" and "Beyond Alternative Solutions" be the same Ron Law, a > food supplement lobbyist, business management lecturer, and > ex-Director of the NZ "Nutritional Foods Association" who is also an > anti-vaccination campaigner and is railing against his "supplements" > being subject to quality control and proven efficacy standards? > > (What is a non-nutritional food - McDonalds?) Is it the best argument you can make - to divert attention from the message to the messenger and attack the messenger? He could be a child rapist but the referenced document indeed shows that there was a concern about vaccine efficacy, and that one of the conditions for the vaccine approval was: "Informed consent forms be provided to person about to be vaccinated (or parent/guardian in the case of children under the age of 15 years). These forms clearly identify concerns about efficacy." http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0807/Medsafe_Instruction_to_MOH_re_efficacy___3_Aug_2004.pdf
From: juderon on 2 Aug 2008 03:24 On Aug 2, 12:26 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: ...As most of these deaths occurred in road accidents within a month or so of the vaccine been given how on earth can you justify saying " Those deaths were related to vaccine use"? Peter, you don't have most of the source documents received under the Official Information Act... I do... Accidents related to MeNZB vaccine are very plausible... the MeNZB datasheet makes two contradictory statements side by side... "Effects on ability to drive and use machines The vaccine is unlikely to produce an effect on the ability to drive or use machines. Dizziness has been very rarely reported following vaccination. This may temporarily affect the ability to drive or use machines." ...mmm... I wonder if being temporarily dizzy such that it affects the ability to drive or use machines could result in accidents. Have you noticed that most of the links that don't work are MOH links that have been removed? You simply do not know what you are talking about, although you do have a gift at being able to identify typos... well done. Ron Law Risk & Policy Analyst
From: Peter Parry on 2 Aug 2008 13:07 On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:24:05 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 2, 12:26�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: >...As most of these deaths occurred in road accidents within a month >or so of the vaccine been given how on earth can you justify saying " >Those deaths were related to vaccine use"? > >Peter, you don't have most of the source documents received under the >Official Information Act... I do... > >Accidents related to MeNZB vaccine are very plausible... Only if you have a different dictionary to the rest of the English speaking world. "Plausible - seeming reasonable or probable" (Oxford English Dictionary) Such accidents weeks after inoculation are not even remotely _plausible_. They just might reach improbable. Immediately after vaccination they might even manage possible, but never plausible and you know it. What sort of reputation are you trying to build for yourself? This is nothing more than crude deception. If you are prepared to sign off to this paper is this indicative of your approach to other work? Risk analysis should be about accuracy and dispassionate assessment of the data. You must be led by the data - not massage it and whitewash it until it fits your preconceptions. You are defending propaganda not science. > the MeNZB >datasheet makes two contradictory statements side by side... > >"Effects on ability to drive and use machines >The vaccine is unlikely to produce an effect on the ability to drive >or use machines. >Dizziness has been very rarely reported following vaccination. This >may temporarily affect the ability to drive or use machines." Don't be silly. These statements are not at all contradictory. The vaccine is unlikely to produce an effect on the ability to drive but dizziness has been very rarely reported following vaccination. This may temporarily affect the ability to drive or use machines. What's contradictory about that? In most cases there is no effect, in a rare number there is. >...mmm... I wonder if being temporarily dizzy such that it affects >the ability to drive or use machines could result in accidents. Possibly it could, but that's a world apart from "It is a fact that two deaths occurred during the trials in vaccinees given the MeNZB� vaccine. Thirty eight more have occurred since. Those deaths were related to vaccine use," A passenger in a car driven by a young driver way over the drink driving limit is killed. How do you manage to blame the passengers death on the vaccine the passenger got two weeks previously? You are supposed to be a risk analyst. In a group of young people, where automobile accident is the leading cause of death a certain number are going to die in car accidents each month whether vaccinated or not. For you to say "It is a fact that two deaths occurred during the trials in vaccinees given the MeNZB� vaccine. Thirty eight more have occurred since. Those deaths were related to vaccine use," Is both asinine and professionally dishonest - you must know that. Had the data shown that normally in this age group and time period X deaths would have been expected but in the vaccinated group over the same time period actually 2X deaths occurred you would have produced something worthy of investigation. I suspect you know the data shows no such difference. By distorting the data and making wholly unwarranted claims unsupported by the data you have simply discredited yourself and your paper. This sort of misrepresentation isn't investigation or critique - it is crude propaganda. >Have you noticed that most of the links that don't work are MOH links >that have been removed? They haven't been removed - just re-organised and you haven't bothered to update your links. I've noticed that government websites worldwide are constantly being re-organised, it appears to be a hobby of civil servants. I don't really think it is plausible the World Health Organisation and the US based Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba organisation (to name but two) are changing page addresses specifically to make your life more difficult. >You simply do not know what you are talking about, I know that your report is unbelievable. It is unbelievable because too much of it is obviously and blatantly misrepresenting data. Your claims about deaths is a good example. You said earlier that you were writing for a general audience. Moreover you claim to be a risk analyst and should therefore be more aware than most of how risk can easily be misunderstood. Despite this you deliberately presented the data in a way which _would_ mislead a general reader. This stain flows throughout your documents In too many places where I can easily check I find you have mislead, exaggerated and manipulated information to your own ends. This makes me unwilling to believe anything in those places I can't easily check the veracity of your statements. Quite simply you haven't made your case in any of these documents. By any analysis they are not just poor but intellectually dishonest. If you have any pride at all in your trade of risk analyst you should be thoroughly ashamed of having your name associated with them.
From: juderon on 3 Aug 2008 03:21 On Aug 3, 5:07 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: >Risk analysis should be about accuracy and dispassionate assessment of the >data. You must be led by the data - not massage it and whitewash it >until it fits your preconceptions. You are defending propaganda not >science. Again, you have obviously not seen the data so are commenting blind... I got involved in challenging the Menzb fraud AFTER looking at the evidence... if you had seen the drawers full of documents I have obtained mostly under the official information act or parliamentary questions and analysed them with an open mind you would have become passionate as well... you haven't, so you are simply defending the faith... your comments are almost identical to 4pc and others I've encountered... look at the evidence fort yourself... then you'll be in a position to make an informed comment... What in the MGR series did you find inaccurate... the references are all there... the MOH scaremongering was emotive claptrap... certainly not evidence based...
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached Next: Martin Walker's latest article |