> This kind of logic is typical of big pharma thinking.
>
> Say you have a pre-existing heart condition. I walk up and shoot
> you. You die 3 days later. Prove to me that my bullet killed you and
> not the pre-existing heart condition.
That's going to be a tough assignment if you're into magic
and don't believe that biology operates by specific processes.
On the other hand, it's not too tough if the bullet nicked
the bullet nicked the earlobe but the proximate cause of
death was myocardial inschemia consequent to arterial plaque
that had been building up for years.
It's also easy if the bullet penetrated the skull and pureed
the brain. Either way there's actual *mechanism* involved.
Of course, the more religiously inclined would simply blame
evil spirits. The more avant-garde religious might name
those evil spirits things like "toxins" but it's still the
same old-time religion.
> Secondly, considering the chicken and the egg, which comes first, the
> disease or the vaccine which can cause and/or aggrevagte your disease
> until you are dead?
Ummm, gee -- if the vaccine *aggravates* the pre-existing condition
then a quick consideration of the usual chronology suggests that
the pre-existing condition was ... pre-existing. Wow. It's a good
thing that you have us to work out problems like this that are
too tough for you to do on your own.
Of course, if the pre-existing condition (e.g. mitochondrial
disorder) were a congenital one that can be triggered by any
fever, avoiding vaccines wouldn't really make much long-term
difference.
> When will we learn and admit that vaccines are not safe nor effective?
Maybe when you have a better argument than, "Doctors make too much
money and I hate them for it?"
> When will we learn that you should not inject poisons into sick
> children?
When you can show that it does more harm than *not*.
(NB: Baby Poling's father doesn't seem to agree with you.
That's a bit of a clue, there.)
I won't hold my breath.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Skeptic - 17 Mar 2008 00:54 GMT
> In message
> <465e7e21-073d-4fd1-8678-5c596de4f303@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> those evil spirits things like "toxins" but it's still the
> same old-time religion.
Ah, religion. Here's the great thing for the religious zealots... if you're
shot through the brain with a bullet and you live it is a miracle of god.
If you're shot through the head and you die, god has chosen you to join him.
If you're shot through the head and you're a permanent vegetable then god
has special plans for you. It never ceases to amaze me how religious
zealots - who should be eternally happy since everything that over goes
right or goes wrong is a good thing and in the master plan - somehow are the
root cause of all the world's major problems and wars.
drceephd@insightbb.com - 17 Mar 2008 18:08 GMT
> In message <465e7e21-073d-4fd1-8678-
> I won't hold my breath.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
> +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
If you held your breath until you turned black would be a help.
Dr. Archie Kalernicos (sp) work with the aboriginal population in
Australia proves the fatality of vacinating the ill.
Yet, the docs do not care. As an example, he relayed this. Archie
went on leave. The doc who replaced him was told not to vaccinate any
sick child. The doc new better, He vaccinated two ill kids and killed
them both.
I think it is high time we rethink giving the docs a license to kill
like agent 007. Perhaps they would clean up their murderous ways.
DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
On Mar 14, 8:38 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Ilena Rose" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
> This kind of logic is typical of big pharma thinking.
>
> Say you have a pre-existing heart condition. I walk up and shoot
> you. You die 3 days later. Prove to me that my bullet killed you and
> not the pre-existing heart condition.
If you shot me in my toe, I had it bandaged up at my local ER, and by the
next day I was back at work doing fine... then a few days later dropped dead
... I'd say it wsa probably from that pre-existing heart condition.
What we are talking about here is when we can and can't just assume that a
temporal relationship is also a causative one.
About 7,000 people will die today in the USA. Many of them will have
sniffed cocaine 3 days ago. Did that cause their demise? Many will have
had food poisoning within the last week. Surely that must have killed them.
Many ate steak dinners last night. Steak now kills people too!
The point is this - pick your "event" - whether it be doing drugs, eating
certain foods, engaging in racy activities, or ... or getting a vaccination.
Statistically deaths will occur - based on random chance - shortly after any
such event. The event juxtaposed to a death is not proof of causation.