From: Martin on
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:30 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
<mainframetech(a)yahoo.com> wrote:



< snip >

> Interesting post. Would you be saying that the drug companies are
>using the same formula they used back when the vaccine was giving
>Guillaine-Barrre Syndrome (GBS) to people and ruining some lives as
>well?

Look up what GBS is please. You make yourself look stupid now.

> Just think of the money they saved by doing that, and think of
>the numbers of people that are going to be damaged ths time with the
>greater numbers being vaccinated.
>
> That might explain the news article in the UK that 600 neurologists
>received letters from the government that they should be on the
>lookout for GSB among those vaccinated.

Are you saying that being on the lookout for possible side-effects is
a bad, or even evil thing?

> It made quite stir when folks found out about it.

You mean you had no clue about GBS before? I have news for you, every
doctor on the planet did.

> Here's the link:
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html
>
> Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
>politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks with
>their vaccine.

Got any evidence for that? Of course not.

> Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the American
>people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
>move.

I still do not understand how vaccines can more profitable than just
letting people get the disease and sell them an expensive cure. And
don't give the line that they make people sick by giving them the
vaccine. That's even dumber because that would mean they are doing
something that they might get caught with that is totally unnecessary,
because without the vaccine people are going to get sick anyway.
But you probably don't see the logic of that.

> Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.
>
>Good Luck,
>Chris

From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 24, 4:19�pm, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:30 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
>
> <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >

Restore, Martin Rady atheist.

On Jan 17, 10:01 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:


> On Jan 17, 8:37 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article
> > <4480ba32-d76d-4d94-bb07-3c1e29a74...(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Jan


> > Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original


> > > > <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"


> > > > If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> > > > statements to support it?


> > > > >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> > > > >graphically athttp://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html. Infectious
> > > > >disease mortality declined dramatically prior to availability of most
> > > > >vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and
> > > > >R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in
> > > > >disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
> > > > >measures introduced for the control of these diseases. =EF=BF=BD


> > > > What they wrote was -


> > > > "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> > > > rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. =EF=BF=BDMcKeow=
> > > n
> > > > proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> > > > eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> > > > sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> > > > [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> > > > the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> > > > was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> > > > Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
> > > > that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> > > > United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
> > > > medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases. On the
> > > > other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> > > > vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> > > > care services, were of major importance....


> > > > The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
> > > > parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> > > > gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> > > > improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> > > > as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> > > > infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> > > > of major importance.


> > > > The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> > > > greatly by public health and medical care advances. =EF=BF=BDFor example,
> > > > smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> > > > eradicated, "


> > > > In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
> > > > many deaths, particularly in infants. =EF=BF=BDPoor nutrition, squalid
> > > > conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. =EF=BF=BDIn 1=
> > > 831
> > > > 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> > > > 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). =EF=BF=BDin 1840 5=
> > > 0,000
> > > > succumbed to measles and whooping cough. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that prio=
> > > r to
> > > > the start of the second world war social and public health
> > > > improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> > > > the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> > > > far greater impact than any other measure.


> > > > By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> > > > mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> > > > housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> > > > countries. =EF=BF=BDIn the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the bes=
> > > t fed
> > > > populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
> > > > and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
> > > > significantly by social or public health measures. =EF=BF=BDThe major dec=
> > > line
> > > > in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
> > > > health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
> > > > such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.


> > > > The very valid point Beaglehole and =EF=BF=BDBonita make of course is tha=
> > > t
> > > > there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> > > > measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> > > > cost. =EF=BF=BDThey do not, and never have, proposed that medical improve=
> > > ments
> > > > were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
> > > > book.


> > > > >Whether
> > > > >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known..


> > > > Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
> > > > contrary.


> > > > Your figure is meaningless. =EF=BF=BDNo one questions that massive
> > > > improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> > > > and public health measures. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that in that time the
> > > > effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
> > > > However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically. =EF=BF=BD


> > > > For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> > > > makes no difference 100%. =EF=BF=BDWith vaccination given pre-exposure an=
> > > d
> > > > immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =EF=BF=BDThere is=
> > > no
> > > > other effective treatment.


> > > > The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> > > > USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> > > > when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. =EF=BF=BDBy 1991 it had droppe=
> > > d to
> > > > about 3 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDDuring that time period there was no
> > > > significant =EF=BF=BDalteration in standards of living or social health.


> > > > In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> > > > when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> > > > for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDBy 1998 it was about=
> > > 5
> > > > per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDIn the same time there were no significant social
> > > > changes.


> > > > Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> > > > down to 800 because of vaccination. =EF=BF=BDSince then it has increased =
> > > again
> > > > and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> > > > that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> > > > infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> > > > administering it. =EF=BF=BDI wonder if any read Whale to get support for =
> > > their
> > > > views??


> > > > >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> > > > >to use of vaccine was profound. =EF=BF=BDIn one case, those declines occ=
> > > urred
> > > > >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> > > > >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.


> > > > Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?


> > > > > If the vast majority of
> > > > >declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
> > > > >were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
> > > > >would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. =EF=BF=BD


> > > > It would? =EF=BF=BDThe control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies b=
> > > ecame
> > > > less severe?


> > > > >And that is exactly what happened. =EF=BF=BD


> > > > No it didn't


> > > Prove it.


> > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of polio
> > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have to
> > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of the
> > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the other
> > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.


> That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> past.- Hide quoted text -


> - Show quoted text -



Mark Probert,

Interesting post. Would you be saying that the drug companies are
using the same formula they used back when the vaccine was giving
Guillaine-Barrre Syndrome (GBS) to people and ruining some lives as
well? Just think of the money they saved by doing that, and think of
the numbers of people that are going to be damaged ths time with the
greater numbers being vaccinated.


That might explain the news article in the UK that 600
neurologists
received letters from the government that they should be on the
lookout for GSB among those vaccinated. It made quite stir when
folks
found out about it. Here's the link:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-ki...


Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks
with
their vaccine. Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the
American
people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
move. Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.


Good Luck,
Chris



From: Peter B on

"mainframetech" <mainframetech(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bfc2362-4b34-4893-b6ea-fb8cf8d7cc7e(a)g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks with
their vaccine. Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the American
people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
move. Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.

Chris
===================================================
Chris, people such as yourself were ignorant of the damages of flu,
other diseases, and various remedies.

When they saw people dying from the flu the decided it was wiser to take
the vaccines, some knowingly taking the inherent risk some unknowingly.
You do that self same risk every day from meal to meal, you take your
chance on dying, being crippled in one form or another or just simply
living from one moment to the next.

Anyhow, the unknowing sued out of their ignorance and hurt, the knowing
also took advantage of suing as a way of blameshifting and/or cashing in
on the lawsuits or the unknowing. In any event the manufacturers because
of the inherent ancillary costs despite their best testing decided it
was not worthwhile to remain in business as the losses offset the
profits and basically forced them to subsidize at their total expense
the entire USA vaccine programs. Knowing what the likelihood of future
costs and their inability to pay the employees to produce the vaccines
and also pay for collateral damage they decided to withdraw those
products from the marketplace and let the government know that.

The government now had a choice, let them depart in peace and just let
the Americans suffer the consequences and deal with the deaths and
misery of loved ones or pay for the collateral damage for the greater
good of the American public.

Thank God they did not opt for your choice, live and let die.


From: Martin on
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:53:48 -0800 (PST), Jan Drew
<jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:

>On Jan 24, 4:19?pm, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:30 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
>>
>> <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>
>Restore, Martin Rady atheist.

I've been asking for a few years now who this legendary Martin Rady
is, but I still don't know and Jan ain't talkin'.
From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 25, 2:16�pm, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:53:48 -0800 (PST), Jan Drew
>
> <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 24, 4:19?pm, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:30 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
>
> >> <mainframet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> < snip >
>
> >Restore, Martin Rady atheist.
>
> I've been asking for a few years now who this legendary Martin Rady
> is, but I still don't know and Jan ain't talkin'.

Now, Martin Rady atheist is lying again.

Male
41 years old
Brisbane, Queensland
Australia

http://www.myspace.com/mrady66

http://www.myspace.com/mrady66

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Mark Robert Thorson
Next: Religious information