From: David Wright on
In article <luCdnYySOumF2V7YnZ2dnUVZ8q-mnZ2d(a)>,
JOHN <john(a)> wrote:
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)> wrote in message
>> Read my lips. I never said that he said that his son's autism wasn't
>> caused by mercury, I said that he said that his son's autism could
>> only have been caused by MMR. If it could only have been caused by MMR
>> then it could not have been caused by mercury. That is a simple
>> logical position and requires no mention of any other possible cause.
>> One possible cause means one possible cause.
>You say that but lets see his actual words to that effect
>and is he your straw man?
>> Child waster.
>> --
>Yes, you support that
>"The computer records from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,
>obtained by Gannett News Service using the Freedom of Information Act as
>part of a four-month study of federal immunization policy, reveal: Of 253
>infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of
>Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program, 224, or 86
>percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus
>and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was
>originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them. Of 771
>total claims filed by parents from 1990 through mid-1998, 660, or 86
>percent, contained assertions that DTP was the cause of death. And 43
>percent were classified by medical authorities at time of death as SIDS

Good thing we don't use DTP any more, isn't it?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <uIWdnS7BSqrQzyLYnZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d(a)>, JOHN wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)> wrote in message
> news:72iur2p6cqgnmd5p8tvdj9keeugj7rjn8v(a)

>> But he can't cite the research, can he?
>> No matter how many times a lie is written, it is still a lie.
> an expert on lies speaks

From someone who constantly complains about "ad hominem" attacks,
it's funny to see them used as a first response.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)> --------------+
From: David Wright on
In article <1170447153.295846.234590(a)>,
mainframetech <choughton(a)> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 2:59 am, JohnDoe <d...(a)> wrote:
> I see that we've fully entered the namecalling and insult phase of
>our discussion. I have learned over the last week or two by reading a
>few of these topics, that some people seem to devolve to insults and
>other negative comments.

Unfortunately, almost everyone does. It's not a characteristic of one
particular group.

>I have seen a document floating around here
>to do with warning new users about "Pharma-phloggers" (I like that
>better than 'bloggers'), and I wonder if some of the posters here are
>some of those folks, because they display the same characterisitics
>mentioned in the warning.

You're the kind of guy who I could inform that "gullible" isn't in the
dictionary and you'd go off to check.

Yes, you've seen that "document" floating around here, because PeterB,
its author, likes to repost it every so often. But you're just
assuming he's right in his claims. Did it ever occur to you that he
might just be nuts? I mean, why would any pharmaceutical company
waste money putting shills here on m.h.a? It's not cost-effective.
And putting a whole bunch of them here *really* isn't cost-effective.

Don't you have *any* skepticism towards such claims? I can make a
much more plausible case that PeterB, the author of the "document" you
mention, is a paid shill for a set of vitamin companies.

>If that's true, it's so easy to recognize these folks, but I wonder
>too what led them to do what they do. Are they paid? That would make
>some sense. Are they in desperate need of spitting venom at folks,
>using the phony excuse that they're saving them from bad medicine?
>That makes no sense.

Why not? In essence, you're positing that the pro-alts are a bunch of
selfless angels who do it all for free, but that *anyone* who disagrees
with them must be paid. That makes absolutely no sense.

>They would be more decent to folks to convince them of their point.

Not exactly. The Johns and PeterBs and vernons of the world are
beyond convincing. With them it's more like a religious conviction.
Not too easy to remove *those*.

>Are they just coming here and posting to look knowledgeable and wise
>and convince the newcomers that they know all?

Or just doing it for the hell of it? That's why I do it.

>That makes no sense. Who would insult folks they want to convince of
>something? Naah, to me only the money motive seems to fit.

But of course, those who push alternative solutions couldn't
*possibly* be in it for the dough, now could they, Chris?

>Lordee...I think what it must be like selling your soul by misleading
>folks about real dangers in the medical community, and it distresses
>me. Those poor people.

There are real dangers in the medical community, and anyone with an IQ
above room temperature knows it, even if they don't think about it
explicitly. But that doesn't mean that so-called "alternative"
approaches are therefore risk-free.

The only poster I've ever seen on these newsgroups (and you'll see him
too if you stick around long enough) who I think is a geniune paid
shill goes by the name of "Kent Ross" (or something similar). All he
ever posts are things to lure you into going to the web site for a
group of ambulance chasers who want to file class-action suits against
medical firms (including drug firms).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
From: David Wright on
In article <DUPwh.78$yH3.42(a)trndny07>, Mike <mike(a)> wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
>> Children are almost never given TT or Td. The amount of thimerosal in
>> even the heaviest pediatric HepB dose is less than you'd get from a
>> tuna sandwich.
>It is not so innocuous when you take body weight into account. One tuna
>sandwich for a 9 lb infant is like 20 sandwiches for a 180 lb adult.
>Actually it is even worse than that because an infant body is much
>weaker, especially for very young children who do not have blood brain
>barrier yet.

Except that the amount of mercury is even smaller than the doses you
seem to be worried about. In any event, even infants clear thimerosal
from the body with great rapidity. Go find something more significant
to worry about. There are lots of candidates.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
From: Jan on
On Feb 2, 9:22 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)> wrote:
> "8'FED" <dra...(a)> wrote:
> >JohnDoe wrote:
> >> JOHN wrote:
> >> > "Peter Bowditch" wrote:
> >> >>>who cares what he thinks, MMR obviously caused his sons MMR
> >> >>You care enough about what he thinks to demand that I show you where
> >> >>he says it. If you think his opinion is irrelevant, perhaps you should
> >> >>contact whoever owns and get Gallup's article removed.
> >> > LOL. You used his "alleged" comment about autism not being caused by
> >> > mercury but only by MMR, which I asked you to produce,
> >> > to make out that is waht we all think
> >> > so you don't produce that, only his comment about MMR
> >> > time waster
> >> Having trouble with the meaning of the word 'only'? If Gallup claims
> >> that the *only* possible cause of autism is MMR, then he claims, albeit
> >> implicitely, that mercury (read: thimerosal, which is not mercury) does
> >> not cause autism. Like Peter Bowditch said, that is what 'only' means.
> >Yeah, but in the quotation under discussion, the word "ON" has three
> >occurences, the word "OUR" has two occurences, but the word
> >"ONLY" (which lies between the two alphabetically) has no occurences
> >whatsoever.
> >I don't like to sound as though I'm defending John in any way (let me
> >be explicit: neither mercury nor MMR cause or influence the onset of
> >autism), but in this case I must confess that I don't follow the sense
> >of Peter's argument.
> >If the point of contention were over whether I have said: "Being hit
> >on the head with a plank of wood is the only possible cause for any
> >headache; nobody ever suffers a headache due to being hit on the head
> >with an iron bar", then it would not be pertinent to quote me as
> >saying: "I have established to my satisfaction that my headache was
> >caused by being hit on the head with a plank of wood".
> >For the same reason, I don't see the pertinence of the quotation Peter
> >chose to share.
> >Adrian.
> Sometimes I feel like poking anti-vaccination liars with a sharp
> pointy stick for no other reason than they need poking with a sharp
> pointy stick.
> I keep seeing absolute statements about the cause of autism. The title
> of this thread "Thimerosal Definite Cause Of Autism" is an example.
> Leave aside for the moment the fact that there is no scientifically
> verifiable link between thimerosal and autism


More blatant lies.

A new study shows that autism may be linked after all
to the use of mercury in childhood vaccines, despite
government's previous claims to the contrary.

An article in the March 10, 2006, issue of the Journal
of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that since
mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the
alarming increase in reported rates of autism and
other neurological disorders (NDs) in children not
only stopped, but actually dropped sharply - by as
much as 35 percent.

Using the government's own databases, independent
researchers analyzed reports of childhood NDs,
including autism, before and after removal of
mercury-based preservatives. Authors David A. Geier,
B.A. and Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. analyze data from
the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental
Services (CDDS) in "Early Downward Trends in
Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines."

The numbers from California show that reported autism
rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had
continued, the reports would have skyrocketed to more
than 1000 by the beginning of 2006. But in fact, the
Geiers report that the number actually went down to
only 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a
decrease from the projections of 35 percent.

This analysis directly contradicts 2004
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine which
examined vaccine safety data from the National
Immunization Program (NIP) of the CDC. While not
willing to either rule out or to corroborate a
relationship between mercury and autism, the IOM
soft-pedaled its findings, and decided no more studies
were needed. The authors write: "The IOM stated that
the evidence favored rejection of a causal
relationship between thimerosal and autism, that such
a relationship was not biologically plausible, and
that no further studies should be conducted to
evaluate it."

As more and more vaccines were added to the mandatory
schedule of vaccines for children, the dose of the
mercury-based preservative thimerosal rose, so that
the cumulative dose injected into babies exceeded the
toxic threshold set by many government agencies.
Mercury is known to damage nerve cells in very low

The concern about vaccines may actually be underrated,
as it is generally acknowledged that the voluntary
reporting of such disorders has resulted in vast
underreporting of new cases. For example, the Iowa
state legislature banned thimerosal from all vaccines
administered there after it documented a 700-fold
increase in that state alone. California followed
suit, and 32 states are considering doing so.

Up until about 1989 preschool children got only 3
vaccines (polio, DPT, MMR). By 1999 the CDC
recommended a total of 22 vaccines to be given before
children reach the 1st grade, including Hepatitis B,
which is given to newborns within the first 24 hours
of birth. Many of these vaccines contained mercury. In
the 1990s approximately 40 million children were
injected with mercury-containing vaccines.

The cumulative amount of mercury being given to
children in this number of vaccines would be an amount
187 times the EPA daily exposure limit.

The Geiers conclude that mercury continues to be a
concern, as it is still added to some of the most
commonly-used vaccines, such as those for flu.

Despite its removal from many childhood vaccines, thimerosal is still
routinely added to some formulations of influenza vaccine administered
to U.S. infants, as well as to several other vaccines (e.g. tetanus-
diphtheria and monovalent tetanus) administered to older children and
adults. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) retreated from the stated 1999 goal of the
AAP and the PHS to remove thimerosal from U.S. vaccines as soon as
possible...As a result, assessing the safety of TCVs [thimerosal-
containing vaccines] is a matter of significant importance."
Editor's Note: The new study confirms claims made by Dr. Russell
Blaylock in the Blaylock Wellness Report that childhood vaccines that
contain thimerosal, a mercury based preservative, could cause serious
harm to children, including autism. Dr. Blaylock has also warned that
vaccines for adults, such as the flu shot, pose dangers.
> --
> Peter Bowditch
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: ~ * The Animal Rescue
Next: Sodium Benzoate