From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 25, 10:27�pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> 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

He is now 43 and has a picture of himself there. He is overweight.

How'd ya like that Mark S Probert??

From: Peter Parry on
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:13:56 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 23, 4:27�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> So are you now claiming the book included vaccination in both the 3.5%
>> and the 96.5%? �Quaint.
>
>The authors did.

You have a much better crystal ball than I do. There seems to be
little point in continuing this aspect of the discussion as your mind
appears to be made up.

>> >For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
>> >same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
>> >deployed.

The period 500BC to 2000 covers the same period during which most
modern vaccines were developed and deployed. !900 to 1975 has no
relevance other than it was a range of dates for which presumed
reliable data was easy to find. Within that date range there are two
distinctly different periods relevant to the discussion and no
particular logic behind lumping them together.

>So you didn't realize that Beaglehole himself was citing the McKinlay
>study for its finding?

He references several hundred studies all of which contributed to his
findings.

>That explains all your references to the 1930s,

No it doesn't.

>> Your fallacy is to assume linear interpretation. �During the period
>> from the mid 1880's to the 1980's...
>
>So you are now changing your comment about the 1930s to the 1980s?

Did the world stop in 1975?

> resort to never ending non sequiturs in an effort to discredit what > Beaglehole is merely reporting.

As I have repeatedly said I don't disagree with what he is reporting -
only with your misunderstanding of what he is saying.


>> During the period from 1900 to 1975
>> there were two distinct phases. �In the early 1900's public health
>> measures still had the greatest impact. �From 1930/40 onwards the
>> returns from them diminished as living standards grew. �At the same
>> time the growth in antibiotics and vaccination meant that from 1930
>> onwards medical advances started to predominate.
>
>It's fine that you believe all of that, and some of it is true enough,
>but you have no way to substantiate these more narrow time frames

It is pretty simple to do by reference to any history book covering
the period.


>> So from �1900 to 1930
>> public health measures had a significant impact and medical treatments
>> far less so. � From 1950 to 1980 public health measures had a
>> negligible impact as there were (in the west) few gains to be made but
>> medicine made significant advances. The balance shifted.
>
>That's a really bad example of wishful thinking on your part. For
>instance, the popularization of vitamin C could be credited with
>dramatically improving rates of heart disease during the 1970s,

So could the rise in the number of McDonalds outlets, there is an
equal amount of evidence for both claims and both are equally
improbable.

>In referring to the defeat of smallpox in Europe and other nations as
>a result of economic development, it is.

He was discussing the possibility of a deliberate attempt to start a
smallpox outbreak in the USA and how best to deal with it. In that
context he made passing reference to history in a one line statement
and you are so desperate that you want to count that as the definitive
history of smallpox eradication in the USA?

>Note that "herd immunity," a reference to inoculation, is not credited
>with doing that.

Probably because he wasn't discussing the history of smallpox but the
consequences of a terrorist attack.

>> Hence the importance of improving agriculture, increasing living
>> standards and reducing �birth rates. � As the research you misquoted
>> earlier found "One important finding was that the effect
>> upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing".
>> Produce good living standards and a sound diet and you have a major
>> impact on illness. �Giving people with an adequate diet vitamin D
>> pills does nothing other than inflate the coffers of the multi-million
>> dollar nutricutical companies. �It is better to establish a good and
>> sustainable diet than it is to offload vitamin pills onto under
>> developed countries.

>I knew you would sooner or later get around to why you are really
>here. Thank you for showing your true colors by attacking natural
>medicine,

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural" medicine. The is nothing
remotely "natural" about the chemical reactions and industrial
processes used by the major nutricutical manufacturers to manufacture
their various offerings.

There is no substitute for good agriculture and a balanced diet in
raising standards of living.

> At least you admit you are here to defend the profits of the
>vaccine makers.

Eh?

> the fact remains that supplemental
>nutrition (also cited in the WHO data) can be used to save lives and
>improve public health.

Of course it can, and as a stopgap it can be very useful until the
standards of agriculture can be improved and a balanced diet provided.

> I would be perfectly agreeable to some multi-party
>consortium launching its own manufacturing facility in order to carry
>this out so that any profits could be fed back into public health.

Given the profits currently been made by the nutricutical industry
that would be possible, but I suspect rather unlikely.
From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 25, 10:48�pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 10:27 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> He is now 43 and has a picture of himself there. �He is overweight.
>
> How'd ya like that Mark S Probert??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No reply from the *Gang* is noted.

From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 26, 7:32 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:13:56 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 23, 4:27 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> So are you now claiming the book included vaccination in both the 3.5%
> >> and the 96.5%?  Quaint.
>
> >The authors did.  
>
> You have a much better crystal ball than I do.  There seems to be
> little point in continuing this aspect of the discussion as your mind
> appears to be made up.

My statements are consistent with the citation quoted, while yours are
a flight of fancy.

> >> >For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
> >> >same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
> >> >deployed.
>
> The period 500BC to 2000 covers the same period during which most
> modern vaccines were developed and deployed.  

Then you accept that vaccines would not logically be excluded from a
data set representing a period of history in which they were used.
That was my point.

> !900 to 1975 has no
> relevance other than it was a range of dates for which presumed
> reliable data was easy to find.  

Then you accept that the study period was relevant to vaccine.

> Within that date range there are two
> distinctly different periods relevant to the discussion and no
> particular logic behind lumping them together.

The authors made no such distinction regarding "distinctly different
periods" nor did they suggest segmenting the effects of these various
healthcare measures, and for good reason. Their individual
contributions had never been measured, so how could they?

> >So you didn't realize that Beaglehole himself was citing the McKinlay
> >study for its finding?  
>
> He references several hundred studies all of which contributed to his
> findings.

You are being evasive. The particular citation offered by me is a
specific reference to the McKinlay finding that, from 1900 to 1975,
not more than 3.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality could
be ascribed to measures introduced for the major infectious diseases.
There is only one study footnoted to that particular quote, which you
would know if you had read the book.

> >That explains all your references to the 1930s,
>
> No it doesn't.

Then nothing does.

> >> Your fallacy is to assume linear interpretation.  During the period
> >> from the mid 1880's to the 1980's...
>
> >So you are now changing your comment about the 1930s to the 1980s?
>
> Did the world stop in 1975?

The study cited by Beaglehole did, so your comments are meaningless.
You have failed to produce a single shred of evidence supporting your
own bogus claims, so heavily stacked are the facts against you.

> > resort to never ending non sequiturs in an effort to discredit what > Beaglehole is merely reporting.  
>
> As I have repeatedly said I don't disagree with what he is reporting -
> only with your misunderstanding of what he is saying.

You have deliberately misrepresented the text by using non existent
conventions in terminology. If I'm wrong, what scientific authority
can you cite that agrees with you? Put up, or shut up.

> >In referring to the defeat of smallpox in Europe and other nations as a result of
> >economic development, Dr. Mack clearly said it was not a result of "herd immunity."
>
> He was discussing the possibility of a deliberate attempt to start a
> smallpox outbreak in the USA and how best to deal with it....

The fact you repeatedly delete what he himself stated regarding the
history of smallpox in both europe and America is proof that you know
you are lying. You, Peter Parry, are a liar. And I'll prove it by
restoring what he stated:

"...If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from
this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared
because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared
from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained
here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not
from universal vaccination."

>  In that
> context he made passing reference to history in a one line statement
> and you are so desperate that you want to count that as the definitive
> history of smallpox eradication in the USA?

Quoting a respected medical expert in the field of infectious disease
does not make me desperate. Desperation is your repeated deletion of
what he said because it destroys your argument.

> >I knew you would sooner or later get around to why you are really
> >here.  Thank you for showing your true colors by attacking natural
> >medicine,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "natural" medicine.  The is nothing
> remotely  "natural" about the chemical reactions and industrial
> processes used by the major nutricutical manufacturers to manufacture
> their various offerings.  

I am not referring to synthetic vitamins as they are not naturally
occurring, but to actual food-based nutrition as "natural medicine."
In order to be a credible poster in a newsgroup devoted to medical
"alternatives," you should at least understand the difference.

> There is no substitute for good agriculture and a balanced diet in
> raising standards of living.

Neither is vaccine a substitute for those things, as it cannot
compensate for poor health. But supplemental nutrition in the proper
form can and does support better health directly, as nutrients are
essential for resistance to disease.
From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:07:38 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 26, 7:32�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:


>> I'm not sure what you mean by "natural" medicine. �The is nothing
>> remotely �"natural" about the chemical reactions and industrial
>> processes used by the major nutricutical manufacturers to manufacture
>> their various offerings. �

>I am not referring to synthetic vitamins as they are not naturally
>occurring, but to actual food-based nutrition as "natural medicine."

My apologies if I have misunderstood you, unfortunately many pill
pushers refer to their products as "natural" or "food supplements" If
you are arguing for a balanced diet then on that at least we are in
agreement.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Mark Robert Thorson
Next: Religious information