From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 12, 4:06�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:34�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:rv47p5pshqd6dgk0747f9bagk8a0e73ul2(a)4ax.com...
>
> > > Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of
> > >>health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
>
> > > You're doing it again, Jan. Why do you keep telling this lie?
>
> > what, that he never said it
>
> > or that vaccines are safe, that is the biggest lie of allhttp://whale.to/vaccines/safer.html
>
> > "THE ONLY WHOLLY SAFE VACCINE IS THE VACCINE THAT IS NEVER USED." (Dr J..
> > Shannon of the National Institute of Health, U.S.A., June 23 1955.)
>
> 1955? Methinks you live in the past. What would he say today (assuming
> he even said it)?

He did and it's a proven fact.
>
> He would say nothing. He's dead. How convenient for you that it cannot
> be verified.

Oh, shut up Scum. You have not vertify 99% of your lies.

It matters not if he is dead. So are many great people. What they
said is STILL very true.

If you do not have an insane need to argue, you could find things.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/bowman/BioShannon.htm

http://www.awakentothetruth.com/vaccinations.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/24/obituaries/james-a-shannon-89-is-dead-ex-director-of-health-institutes.html?pagewanted=1

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/bowman/BioShannon.htm

From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 12, 4:09�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:45�am, mainframetech <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 5:44�pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, mainframetech <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 8:49�am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 8:33�am, mainframetech <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 2, 5:01�pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > john wrote:
>
> > > > > > > �> Joan Cranmer's Fateful Decisions and the Suppression of Autism Science
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> By Mark Blaxill
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> March 02, 2010
> > > > > > > �>http://www.ageofautism.com
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> On February 12, 2010 the journalNeurotoxicology made a quiet change
> > > > > > > on its
> > > > > > > �> web-site to an "in-press" article that had previously been available
> > > > > > > as an
> > > > > > > �> "epub ahead of print." �There was no press release or public
> > > > > > > announcement,
> > > > > > > �> simply an entry change. The entry for the article, "Delayed
> > > > > > > acquisition of
> > > > > > > �> neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing
> > > > > > > �> Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight", was
> > > > > > > �> first modified to read "Withdrawn" and has since been removed altogether
> > > > > > > �> from the Neurotoxicology web-site. The only remaining official trace
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > �> paper is now the following listing on the National Library of Medicine's
> > > > > > > �> "PubMed" site.
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> � Neurotoxicology. 2009 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print]
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> � WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn
> > > > > > > primates
> > > > > > > �> receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of
> > > > > > > �> gestational age and birth weight.
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> � Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L,
> > > > > > > �> White ER, Wakefield AJ.
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> � Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh
> > > > > > > School
> > > > > > > �> of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States; Thoughtful House
> > > > > > > Center
> > > > > > > �> for Children, Austin, TX 78746, United States.
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> � This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor. The
> > > > > > > �> Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
> > > > > > > �>
> > > > > > > �> How can a scientific study simply vanish?
>
> > > > > > > Crappy science is crappy science.
>
> > > > > > > Just like Wakefield's crappy science.
>
> > > > > > > Jeff
>
> > > > > > > <...>
>
> > > > > > � �The science of the original article can be judged by anyone that
> > > > > > wants to look at it. �The article in its original form is located at:
>
> > > > > >http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/primates_hep_b.pdf
>
> > > > > Holy smoke! Pure bullshit. For clarification:
>
> > > > >http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/generation_rescue_and_fourt...
>
> > > > > > � �The discussion and conclusions at the end point out the need to
> > > > > > look further into the problem of vaccines containing Thimerosal.. �
>
> > > > > With a child being able to have all childhood vaccines without
> > > > > Thimerosal, why waste money on that?
>
> > > > > My
>
> > > > > > own addition is that they ought to look also at all of the adjuvants
> > > > > > that are used in these vaccines.
>
> > > > > Why? There is no evidence suggesting that the adjuvants are causing
> > > > > any problems.
>
> > > > > > � � The key problem is that the drug industry found that vaccinations
> > > > > > are very profitable and so they will work hard to find reasons to
> > > > > > increase the number of vaccinations our babies must endure
>
> > > > > I see, so you are implicitly blaming the "drug industry" for creating
> > > > > more diseases?
>
> > > > > that
>
> > > > > > contain methyl mercury,
>
> > > > > OOPS! Now that is a either a typo, or a demonstration that you do not
> > > > > have a clue as to what you are bleating and braying about.
>
> > > > > > aluminum and other dangerous chemicals. �The
> > > > > > increase in vaccinations will multiply the effect of any dangerous
> > > > > > contents in them.
>
> > > > > Do you have any proof, other than your personal idle speculation, of
> > > > > that premise?
>
> > > > LOL!
>
> > > > � �It's amazing how easy it is to draw out the usual suspects... :)
>
> > > Exactly. I ask for proof, and you pop up.
>
> > > > The surefire way to do it is to suggest that there is something bad
> > > > about the drug industry. �I can picture the lovefest now after each
> > > > defense of the dirty drug boyz. �Lovin' and huggin' each other near to
> > > > death... :)
>
> > > That is not proof.
>
> > > > � Does anyone wonder why they work so hard to disrupt this forum? �
>
> > > I am sorry, but question the anti-vaccination dogma is not disruption..
> > > I know that this is an idea that is foreign to the anti-
> > > vaccinationist, as they exclude legitimate journalists who ask
> > > questions from their love-ins.
>
> > > NOTE: I can prove that on at least two occasions.
>
> > > I
>
> > > > suggest it's because people coming here might find working
> > > > alternatives to the costly and deathdealing drugs that are out there.
>
> > > You can post your idle speculation to yours "hearts" content. I do
> > > this because I know that vaccines save lives. As for death dealing,
> > > anti-vacs are pro-death and disability.
>
> > > > Chris-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > LOL! �It's amazing to see how you can actually concoct a post without
> > using profanity when you choose. �
>
> I do acknowledge that, on occasion, I use profanity, when it is called
> for. However, that is not my norm.

Do show us in Torah where it is OK to use profanity *when it is called
for*

You cannot, so--I will.

http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-6b.html

G-d's Justice System

When we judge others, we are setting our own personal justice system.
If I am constantly finding fault and criticizing others, I send a
message to G-d. Shortcomings should be noticed and highlighted;
there's no room for mercy and tolerance. And G-d allows us to fashion
the very justice system with which He views us. If we see only the bad
in others, we bring upon ourselves the very judgment we, in our minds,
visit upon others daily.

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=338

In the next portion of the midrash, the sages teach that it is fitting
for people to speak in clean, appropriate language:"

The words of Hashem are pure'...In the Torah, God chose to write eight
extra words in order to avoid using terminology which was not 100%
'clean. In the Book of Bereishit, for instance, Noach is told to
choose for the ark from among 'the pure cattle and from the cattle
that is not pure...' [- instead of referring to the latter group using
the Hebrew term for ritually impure beasts, "Tameh." ] In
disqualifying the rabbit as a pure animal, the Torah does not say that
the impurity derives from the fact that the rabbit does not have split
hooves, [though this is true] but rather that the rabbit is impure
because it [only] chews its cud. (Vaykira 11)" The clear message of
the midrash: when unpleasant things are uttered, they must be
expressed in the cleanest, most honorable manner possible.

When we talk about being careful about speech, we're talking about two
different issues. What to say, and how to say it.

First of all, it is important not to say things that need not be said.
When something is in need of being said, it should be expressed using
clean, appropriate language. I've mentioned on several occasions that
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook (of blessed memory) was very cautious with his
words, always carefully weighing what he had to say before he said it.
He would never say things in the negative, but would always couch his
ideas in positive terms.

http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/missinglink.html#

The Missing Link
Rabbi Yisrael Rutman
Where did human language come from?

Linguists and biologists seem to have been working overtime evolving
theories for the origin of language. Some posit a "gestural theory,"
that our way with words evolved from animal hand signs; others believe
that there was a developmental relationship between the movements of
the mouth in chewing and its movements in speaking. Darwin himself
proposed that human language evolved from the cries of animals, an
idea that was derided in its time as the "bow-wow" theory.

The fact is, there isn't any fossil record to go on, and nobody really
knows. "The whole field is not settled," concedes William Calvin, a
neurobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.
"Everybody's got a theory." His own theory is that language evolved
from the rapid mental reflexes required to, say, throw a spear at a
running mammoth.

The reason that everybody's got a theory is that, aside from the fun
of making up your own history of the species, the origin of language
is acknowledged to be one of the biggest questions facing linguists.
It goes right to the question of what it means to be human. For, as
the pre-eminent linguist Noam Chomsky observed, "One distinctive
feature about humans is the language capacity. It's central for our
present existence and...seems unique to the human species..." On that
there seems to be little argument in scientific circles.

Indeed, on this point the scientists will get no argument from
tradition. The Jewish Sages divide creation into four levels: mineral,
plant, animal and man. In the original Hebrew, however, the word used
for man is not adam, but medaber, which means speaker. (Likewise the
word for mineral is domem, silent.) The Sages understood that the
capacity for verbal communication is essential to man; that is what
man is, a talker.

From a societal perspective, it is easily understood; so much of our
life is made up of verbal interaction. Friendship, business, politics,
entertainment, even war, is a vast fabric of words. Trillions of them
pass through the internet daily. Indeed, without language, society
faces breakdown. In biblical times, the people of the Tower of Babel,
who had come together to build their skyscraping edifice, dispersed
into seventy nations when they found themselves suddenly conversing in
different tongues. In modern times, too, language has been a major
catalyst for a babble of separatist movements, in French Canada,
Kurdish Turkey, Albanian Macedonia, and East Timor, to name just a
few.

The centrality of speech is also manifest in Jewish observance in the
form of prayer and Torah study, and in refraining from lying, gossip
and profanity. The Torah describes creation itself as a function of
speech, "...And the Lord said, Let there be light." Moreover,
tradition teaches that The Ten Commandments, by which the Jewish
nation came into existence, paralleled The Ten Utterances by which G-d
brought the physical world into existence. (Ethics of the Fathers,
Chapter 5.)

It is in the Torah's account of the creation of man (Genesis 2:7),
however, that the mystery of human language origin is addressed:
"...And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." which is
rendered in the standard Aramaic translation (Onkelos), as G-d
imparting to man a "speaking spirit."

And here we come to a deeper understanding. Beyond the practical,
social need for communication, there is a moral dimension:

"When G-d took the dust of the earth, formed man, and breathed into
him a G-dly soul, He created a unique creature, containing within
himself both the physical and the spiritual. It is that duality that
endows man with free will. Were he bound strictly by the physical
world, he would have no more free choice than the animals. Were he
connected solely to the spiritual world, he would have no more free
choice than the angels. Because man lives in both worlds, he has the
ability to make choices. It follows then that the mouth, where these
two worlds intersect, is where free will is most clearly evident.---
from Rabbi Shimon Finkelman and Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz, Chofetz
Chaim, A Lesson A Day, Overview, P. XXVI-XXVII.

The mouth is not, as some would have it, the evolutionary link between
chewing and speaking, but the moral interface between the soul and the
body. Thought---the flowing, incorporeal issue of the soul---is given
concrete form through the organs of speech. Speech, which can be
employed for good or for evil; to promote peace or propagandize for
war, to commune with G-d or to deny His existence.

When queried on the question of the origin of language in a 1992
interview, Dr. Chomsky said: "I don't think we have a prayer of
answering it on the basis of anything that's now understood." True
enough, but not necessarily in the way that Chomsky intended.

Language is, in a sense, the missing link in evolutionary theory, an
impenetrable mystery about which scientists, using the tools of
science, can only speculate. But in the Jewish view it is, on the
contrary, the ever-present bridge between the physical world we live
in and the world of spirituality to which we may aspire.

>
> However, insults are more difficult
>
> > for you to avoid, it appears. �
>
> Calling a spade a spade is not an insult. It is a description of
> reality.
>
> You can ask for 'proof' until the cows
>
> > come home. �You have to realize that you making a request (or demand)
> > doesn't immediately cause me to scurry around and provide links and
> > common sense and logic for your edification, as needed as it may be.
> > I don't believe that you much care about that anyway, it's just a
> > device of yours to harass folks. �So if you want to see 'proof' of
> > this or that, run and fetch it fella. �It's out there if you need it,
> > and I know you know how to find it.
>
> I see, so you acknowledge that you post flatulence.

Get new glasses. You are blind, and that was indeed harassing

From: Happy Oyster on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:35:18 -0800 (PST), Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:

>> He would say nothing. He's dead. How convenient for you that it cannot
>> be verified.
>
>Oh, shut up Scum. You have not vertify 99% of your lies.

Jan Drew is a Net stalker.

..
--
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 Bowditch on
Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:

>On Mar 12, 4:06?pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 1:34?am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:rv47p5pshqd6dgk0747f9bagk8a0e73ul2(a)4ax.com...
>>
>> > > Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of
>> > >>health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
>>
>> > > You're doing it again, Jan. Why do you keep telling this lie?
>>
>> > what, that he never said it
>>
>> > or that vaccines are safe, that is the biggest lie of allhttp://whale.to/vaccines/safer.html
>>
>> > "THE ONLY WHOLLY SAFE VACCINE IS THE VACCINE THAT IS NEVER USED." (Dr J.
>> > Shannon of the National Institute of Health, U.S.A., June 23 1955.)
>>
>> 1955? Methinks you live in the past. What would he say today (assuming
>> he even said it)?
>
>He did and it's a proven fact.

Proven where? Buy whom?

>>
>> He would say nothing. He's dead. How convenient for you that it cannot
>> be verified.
>
>Oh, shut up Scum. You have not vertify 99% of your lies.
>
>It matters not if he is dead. So are many great people. What they
>said is STILL very true.

If they said it, of course, which has not been proven in this case.

>
>If you do not have an insane need to argue, you could find things.
>
>http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/bowman/BioShannon.htm

Nothing there about him saying it.

>
>http://www.awakentothetruth.com/vaccinations.htm

No evidence there, just assertion of lies.

>
>http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/24/obituaries/james-a-shannon-89-is-dead-ex-director-of-health-institutes.html?pagewanted=1

Nothing there about him saying it.

>
>http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/bowman/BioShannon.htm

Repeating the URL doesn't add him saying it.


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Peter Bowditch on
Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 1:34?am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:rv47p5pshqd6dgk0747f9bagk8a0e73ul2(a)4ax.com...
>>
>> > Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of
>> >>health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
>>
>> > You're doing it again, Jan. Why do you keep telling this lie?
>>
>> what, that he never said it
>>
>> or that vaccines are safe, that is the biggest lie of allhttp://whale.to/vaccines/safer.html
>>
>> "THE ONLY WHOLLY SAFE VACCINE IS THE VACCINE THAT IS NEVER USED." (Dr J.
>> Shannon of the National Institute of Health, U.S.A., June 23 1955.)
>
>Amen!!

If you have the exact date, perhaps you can point to a believable
authority.

No, some anti-vaccination liar web site won't be it.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com