 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008Who Should Die In Pandemic?
Evidence of denial. These guys really think they are immune to this stuff. They better be watching their own a.ses before they think about who IS going to BE dying .. "first" .. Anyone with contact .. with .. those infected people .. whose lactoferrin is filled right .. up. I wonder if organ harvesting will continue through .. red .. yellow .. or green .. alerts .. ? ----------------------------------- Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Provided by: Associated Press Written by: Lindsey Tanner, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May. 5, 2008 CHICAGO - Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die. Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia. The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report. The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources - including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses - are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said. Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians. "If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states. To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include: -People older than 85. -Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings. -Severely burned patients older than 60. -Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease. -Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes. Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts. Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield." The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force. If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here." James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions. He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive. Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group." While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said. Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone." That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said. "You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn't even know it existed." Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > Evidence of denial. > These guys really think they are immune to this stuff. If the dogma of the medical cartel is truthful, the first to die will be the docs. The docs will be the ones exposed to case after case for many hours a day and many days in a row. Is it not logical that they will contract the disease the most? Why should a citizen exposed to one or two people a week or a month become ill before the docs succomb and die by the thousands? Question. Does the conferring of the medical degree, MD, confer the immunity to any and every disease? If it does, sign me up for med school. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. >> Evidence of denial. >> These guys really think they are immune to this stuff. That, or maybe they accept that as part of the job. > If the dogma of the medical cartel is truthful, the first to die will > be the docs. The docs will be the ones exposed to case after case for > many hours a day and many days in a row. Is it not logical that they > will contract the disease the most? Why should a citizen exposed to > one or two people a week or a month become ill before the docs succomb > and die by the thousands? Perfectly logical, with the proviso that those in poorer health to begin with are likely to have a worse time of it. There are exceptions, as in 1918, however -- those in the *best* health were hit hardest since the flu caused the body to "attack" itself. So -- caregivers (not just MDs, note -- nurses, aids, EMTs, etc. too) will be early casualties. Don't expect that because you'd be hiding in a closet everyone else will. Me, I'll be doing my share of the supportive care. Never enough help, after all. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > Perfectly logical, with the proviso that those in poorer health > to begin with are likely to have a worse time of it. There are > exceptions, as in 1918, however -- those in the *best* health > were hit hardest since the flu caused the body to "attack" itself. Dang, I thought I had rebutted this crap. However, I see that while I am reading this on misc.health.alternative any answer will go to sci.med. You pharma shills are just too, too, imaginative. The above response is ludicrous. It is not based upon any scientific evidence at all. To think that the flu "caused the body to attack itself" is laughable. Consider that the vitalistic/humanistic doctors of the day, yes there were still many of them still practicing in 1918, did not lose even one patient to the "flu" while the allopaths killed their patients by the thousands with mercury and other treatments. There is no limit to the lies and deciet of the medical monopoly and the pharma shills on this site. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. >> Perfectly logical, with the proviso that those in poorer health >> to begin with are likely to have a worse time of it. There are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The above response is ludicrous. It is not based upon any scientific > evidence at all. Aside from the mechanisms of immune response to some antigens, which result in pulmonary edema and are more severe in those with hair-trigger immune systems, with the whole process identified down to the molecular level and validated in animal challenges, maybe not. > To think that the flu "caused the body to attack > itself" is laughable. I'm glad that you find it amusing. > Consider that the vitalistic/humanistic doctors of the day, yes there > were still many of them still practicing in 1918, did not lose even > one patient to the "flu" while the allopaths killed their patients by > the thousands with mercury and other treatments. Your contention was that all of the deaths were iatrogenic, so of course not treating them would follow that they would have no deaths. However, you haven't specified what part of the 1918 treatment for influenza was responsible for those deaths. How can we be sure that the naturopaths weren't doing the same things? > There is no limit to the lies and deciet of the medical monopoly and > the pharma shills on this site. When you point your finger at someone else, at least three point back at you. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 8, 2:33 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > > Evidence of denial. > > These guys really think they are immune to this stuff. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > DrCee > You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. Depending on the lead time, perhaps the Docs will have a special mask, gloves, and overgarment to protect themselves from the contagion. Something like what they tried to back in the day for the "Black Death", if you recall the paintings from the period. This time it might even work;-) Perhaps the "Black Death" was after your time? ;-) Given you haven't apparently heard of viruses and other pathogens. > Depending on the lead time, perhaps the Docs will have a special mask, > gloves, and overgarment to protect themselves from the contagion. > Something like what they tried to back in the day for the "Black > Death", Basic infection precautions, of course. However, in a saturation situation there are bound to be slips. Add that in a pandemic the caregivers will be in close contact with *each* *other* and there's no way to maintain isolation for long. So? Caregivers get sick, too. That's part of the "limited resources" aspect to any pandemic. People who make a big production out of the fact that caregivers aren't somehow immune from what's going around are revealing rather a bit. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 9, 3:11 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:perhaps the Docs will have a special mask << If anyone is interested .. I've designed a special spray .. just for this .. Contact me I will explain it to you .. You do have to wear a mask though but not the cumbersome mask that is offered or at anywhere near the expense. It uses any common everyday dust mask and the spray is applied to the mask. It kills any virus it comes in contact with and also allows for the intake of volatiles from the product. It is based on the principle of flowers and the black plague. I have not tested it but in theory it works .. What do you guys think .. Will it take .. off .. ? Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > On May 8, 2:33 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On May 9, 3:11 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"<trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:perhaps the Docs will have a > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It uses any common everyday dust mask and the spray is applied to the > mask. Have you applied for a patent on your invention? And maybe you have a Nobel prize in your future. Assuming it doesn't kill the person wearing it. > It kills any virus it comes in contact with and also allows for the > intake of volatiles from the product. > > It is based on the principle of flowers and the black plague. Yeah, you caught my reference. Good for you. > I have not tested it but in theory it works .. > > What do you guys think .. We want to select the test subjects. > Will it take .. off .. ? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - On May 10, 11:32 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:Have you applied for a patent on your invention?<< The process is so simple that the only way I think I migtht be able to patent it is maybe going the route of patenting the process of HOW to do it .. as in "must hold arm at certain angle and must look up and away to the left during a windy .. day .." .. and WHEN you DO .. do .. 'that' .. you MUST legally send me some .. cash .. Ah .. hell .. You peel an orange .. You squeeze the juice onto your mask. You put your mask on as you get ready to leave {this gives the juice time to vaporize in the lung] creating a vaporized volatile **barrier** between the surface of the lung plus you get the physical barrier of the mask itself permeated with triterpenoids with virucidal properties. Pretty simple and theoretically very effective .. Would work with a hankerchief or sock in a pinch. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > > On May 9, 3:11 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"<trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:perhaps the Docs will have a > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nobody should die. Homeopathy mediated treatment survival rates are much HIGHER than standard medicine in certain types of epidemics. Citizen Jimserac In misc.health.alternative Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote: : Homeopathy mediated treatment survival rates : are much HIGHER than standard medicine in : certain types of epidemics. Which epidemics would those be? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." >In misc.health.alternative Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Which epidemics would those be? I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for visas to enter Burma. Surely they would be wanting to help after the almost inevitable outbreak of cholera. Perhaps HSF is too busy fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa, the autism epidemic in California or the obesity epidemic in Australian schools. You would imagine, however, that the thinner they spread the resources the more effective they would be, given the principle of infinitesimals. I suppose that you could argue that by applying a 200C preparation of homeopaths to Rangoon they could do a better job than if even a single homeopath managed to get in to the place.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths > sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > preparation of homeopaths to Rangoon they could do a better job than > if even a single homeopath managed to get in to the place. Why not toss a master tincture into the ocean in France, and rely on diffusion and wave action to turn the seawater into medicine? Heck, in that case, the storm surge from the typhoon would be distributing healthful remedies to the people who need them. Job done, mission accomplished! > > I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths > > sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the typhoon would be distributing healthful remedies to > the people who need them. Job done, mission accomplished! Oh ho! Hilarious! UNLESS, that is, you are DYING of an influenza attack. THEN you will, I PROMISE YOU, lose all humor and hope to god that something, ANYTHING works. You've never been really sick have you? Citizen Jimserac > > > I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths > > > sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You've never been really sick have you? I have been . Malaria and Dyssentery at the same time. Treated by conventional medicine. On May 12, 5:46 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:I have been . Malaria and Dyssentery at the same time. Treated by conventional medicine << Bushtuck .. you got to keep abreast .. of the bushtuck .. "Mammalian milk" Pardon the pun .. Ochoa TJ, Cleary TG Effect of lactoferrin on enteric pathogens. [JOURNAL ARTICLE] Biochimie 2008 Apr 18. Much has been learned in recent years about the mechanisms by which breastfeeding improves child health and survival. However, there has been little progress in using these insights to improve pediatric care. Factors that are important for protecting the breast fed infant might be expected to decrease the adverse effects of weaning on diarrhea, growth, and development. Lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein with multiple physiological functions (anti-microbial, anti- inflammatory, and immunomodulatory), is one of the most important proteins present in mammalian milk. Protection against gastroenteritis is the most likely biologically relevant activity of lactoferrin. Multiple in vitro and animal studies have shown a protective effect of lactoferrin on infections with enteric microorganisms, including rotavirus, Giardia, Shigella, Salmonella and the diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Lactoferrin has two major effects on enteric pathogens: it inhibits growth and it impairs function of surface expressed virulence factors thereby decreasing their ability to adhere or to invade mammalian cells. Thus, lactoferrin may protect infants from gastrointestinal infection by preventing the attachment by enteropathogens in the gut. Recently several clinical trials in children have started to address this issue. Whether lactoferrin can prevent a significant portion of diarrheal disease remains to be determined. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biochimie [Biochimie] Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > > > > I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths > > > > sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On May 11, 7:53 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:11 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You've never been really sick have you? I have been . Malaria and Dyssentery at the same time. Treated by conventional medicine. == http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/b5ceaeb48ef1a5f1 April 26, 2005 For those of you who have responded to my postings since Friday and have yet to get a response...patience. I was hospitalized on Friday morning with a GI bleeding problem and had to receive 5 units of blood (that is around a 2/3rds loss of blood, hemoglobin was 5.2) before a very qualified gastroenterologist found the problem and fixed it. I am taking it easy until I am fully recovered and will be only spending a few minutes on line until the weekend. Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!feed7.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!hw-filter.lga!fe10.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health Subject: Taking it light Lines: 13 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Message-ID: <_DAbe.11792$RP1.10458@fe10.lga> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:02:13 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.194.64.219 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net X-Trace: fe10.lga 1114560122 68.194.64.219 (Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:02:02 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:02:02 MST Organization: Optimum Online OrgName: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) OrgID: OPTO Address: 111 new south RD City: Hicksville StateProv: NY PostalCode: 11801 Country: US For those of you who have responded to my postings since Friday and have yet to get a response...patience. I was hospitalized on Friday morning with a GI bleeding problem and had to receive 5 units of blood (that is around a 2/3rds loss of blood, hemoglobin was 5.2) before a very qualified gastroenterologist found the problem and fixed it. I am taking it easy until I am fully recovered and will be only spending a few minutes on line until the weekend. >> > I wonder if Homeopaths Sans Frontières has a contingent of homeopaths >> > sitting in Bangkok with other aid agencies like Oxfam, waiting for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >attack. THEN you will, I PROMISE YOU, lose all humor and hope to god >that something, ANYTHING works. And it won't be homeopathy. >You've never been really sick have you? Not sick enough to fall for nonsense. >Citizen Jimserac SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Too foolish to continue. > Too foolish to continue. You are, of course, correct. What is particularly funny is their attempt to maintain the appearance of rational argument while spouting a never ending list of fallacies, denials of positive results, citations of the Lancet anti-Homeopathy issue and other innuendo... For those interested in reading real research articles about Homeopathy applications to major and chronic illnesses, for those whose minds have not been closed by zombies for whom any new breakthrough, any change in the status quo of orthodoxy is seen as a threat to the hobgobblin like consistency of their little minds, the links are EASILY found, for example THIS one: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp Homeopathic research is growing every day, by leaps and bounds, and SOME of the testing, not all, just some, is coming back positive. It may be that Homeopathy works exactly as advertised or may be something else or maybe this placebo effect that these "scientifically" minded respondents keep talking about but which they cannot define or explain. Neither dark ages thought control nor innuendo is going to keep sick people from discovering the power of Homeopathy to dramatically improve their conditions, nor will the obstinate resentment of the orthodox who expend more time trying to kill research in alternative fields of medicine than in trying to improve the obvious limitations and DANGERS of their own. Citizen Jimserac Again, that web site is: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp again I offer my 75000 gallons of pool water to send to you would be about as effective...at least it has measurable amounts of chlorine in it >> Too foolish to continue. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Again, that web site is: > http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp On May 12, 6:58 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: again I offer my 75000 gallons of pool water to send to you << Here I offer you a spoonful of iron filings .. Now what are YOU going to do with it .. ? "Let's inject it into some kid ".. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > would be about as effective...at least it has measurable amounts of chlorine > in it [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And NOW!!!!!!!!!! we return to the subject line!!! And NOW!!!!!!!!!! we return to the subject line!!! << If I were a .. front line .. worker ..I might look at it like one might look at it when one gets cancer. One runs around in your mind like a little kid screaming. The outward is one takes ALL methods into account .. People can take all the .. nothing has been proven .. BUT .. one must admit to the facts .. and the facts state homeopathy HAS been used for centuries. because it DOESN'T and NEVER ..worked ..and if it did it was .. MAGIC ..?? Come on .. There were hospitals all over Europe and the civilized world everywhere .. Lets get reasonable .. Anyone who claims homeopathy simply .. "doesn't work" .. is kind of a loon .. and anyone who takes the .. tack .. of .. ATTACKING simply on the basis of .. "it hasn't been PROVEN!!!".. is kind of a .. loon .. imho .. But I'm just into health analysis ..man .. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk On May 12, 9:58 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > again I offer my 75000 gallons of pool water to send to you And again I urge you to consider the evidence for something that might be of great benefit to alleviate the suffering of illness. Go to, for example, http://www.rustumroy.com/ and click on the "recent water papers link". Dr. Roy is a fully qualified researcher with impressive scientific credentials which are listed right there at his site. Dr. Roy's comments, "It's NOT "Just Water" Anymore, addresses the common fallacy which you have repeated mindlessly in your jibes. Here are some of his comments: (from "It's Not 'Just Water' Anymore" http://www.rustumroy.com/structure%20of%20water.htm "Just the Facts Since Lavoisier, Faraday, and Priestley’s mid-19th century work, water — as every schoolboy knows is H2O—chemically made up of two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen. Regrettably, for most scientists and physicians that is about all they know about water. They should surely be aware that water, H2O is, also, without near competitor, the most anomalous, odd, peculiar, material on earth. The list of very different properties listed below are so striking that everyone should know water for the oddity it is— yet no one recognizes that for the huge opportunity it presents. WATER…has the highest dielectric constant of any common liquid, hence its action as a nearly universal solvent. WATER…has 64 different and highly anomalous changes in properties. (Later, the reader will learn that this demands that water have nearly the same number of different structures.) WATER…melts at a very high temperature (for such a liquid) and requires a great deal of energy or heat (enthalpy) to melt it, or boil it. WATER…when frozen can be changed into a dozen different thermodynamically stable, structures of ice—all with different properties. WATER…if cooled rapidly, can be made into glass—indeed even many different glasses. WATER…forms a myriad of molecular aggregates, some in the vapor phase, involving 2–200 H2O units." Peter Bowditch a while back called Dr Roy an idiot because of some letters to the editor he had written and yet here we have major scientific papers coming from this scientist - such as the one published recently in 2008 demonstrating polarized RF radiation catalyzed dissociation of salt water solutions. I'd say Dr. Roy is the productive scientist and Peter Bowditch is talking like an idiot when he makes such assertions. Is any of this "proof" of Homeopathy? NO! It is only steps along the road of research. But by displaying your IGNORANCE of the research and details you have unwittingly made yourself a pawn of those who feel SO THREATENED by Homeopathy that they would necessitate the shutting down of ALL research and the closure of all investigation regarding it. THIS is NOT, I submit the reaction of scientifically minded peoples. It IS hysteria, innuendo and a kind of dark ages demonization of that which is on the border of the unknown. If such an attitude had been displayed early in the 20th century, there would have been NO quantum mechanics and NO relativity and yet, they defy common sense and yet are real and do exist. Citizen Jimserac > And again I urge you to consider the evidence > for something that might be of great benefit > to alleviate the suffering of illness. You mean Lourdes water? Or perhaps exorcism? Both are proven by time and have a much better track record of patient testimonials than any of the treatments that you have been proposing. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ And..... Back to the subject..... > In message <c03bfeef-5c60-4951-a685-33ed29b25...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ OK the Francis report. Double blind placebo test... good! Large population sample... good! And, as expected, those getting the vaccine showed lower incidence of polio, by far, than the placebo group. So far so good but... (You just know there is going to be a but...) How in the hell did it end up that those getting the placebo, if I recall it was colored water... how did THEY end up getting a higher incidence of polio than that part of the sample that got no vaccinations. Second, after all the hoopla over results which were known in advance to be APPARENTLY favorable... could you explain how the vaccine got "tainted" which outraged the public and led many to avoid it and the "booster" shots. Third, why exactly were the "booster" shots needed? Fourth - could you explain the tradeoff between the extent and manner in which the virus was disabled and the effectiveness of the vaccine. As I understand it, if the virus is not disabled enough, then you are injecting live polio virus into a person giving them a good chance of getting the disease and if you "disable" it too much it will not suffice to stimulate the immune system to produce the antibodies. Lastly, this test, convincing though it may be to some, was done in the mid 1950's. What about virus mutations? How many studies have been done on this scale since then... none? I note with interest that in 1987 a newer and more "potent" form of the deactivated virus was developed (see web page mentioned below). What happened, the 1954 version not good enough or was this a de facto admission that the 1954 version of the deactivated virus was ineffective? This single test is NOT enough to convince me that the vaccine alone accomplished anything other than to make some people sick. RATHER, an equally likely explanation is that the widespread publicity about the disease made people pay more attention to hygeine (fecal contamination was one mode of transmission), food preparation and especially sewage control (see web page mentioned below). I NOW direct YOUR attention to the following excellent web page from Brown University describing the characteristics, structure and mode of transmission of the virus. http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects1999/polio/polweb.html Those who BLINDLY rely on a single test are advised to educate themselves as to the details of this virus, its mode of transmission, etiology and structure. I was surprised to learn, for example, that there are three main "strains" of the virus and it appears that the geometric structure has been worked for only two of them, the "Mahoney" strain and the "Sabin" strain (which is the deactivated virus). Next I learn that poliomyelitis progresses to paralysis in LESS THAN 1 IN 100 CASES. In many the symptoms are no more severe than that of the common cold and the virus has no other effect. I also see that to this day there is NO cure for the disease. I will REITERATE that point to help it sink in - there is NO known cure for the disease in standard medicine. What about Homeopathy? Let us assume, just for this moment, that there is a valid mechanism for Homeopathic action. I know some of you disagree violently with that and that the theory of Homeopathy is the subject of ongoing research. It's "controversial". I love that expression because it hides the fear that it might work in a "polticially correct" expression. I direct your attention to the following web page (see below) which discusses the use of Homeopathy in epidemics. But, first a comment - by the late 1950's, I'm guessing there were probably no more than 200 practicing Homeopaths in the entire U.S.. Why is that? Answer: Because there was for decades prior to that, a concerted attempt to kill an entire system of medicine. Starting even before the era of the Flexner report, various official organizations lobbied political and governmental agencies and legislatures to ban essentially ban ALL alternative medicine as nonsense. This included the eventual shutting down of nuermous medical colleges of Homeopathy - colleges the curricula of which, I might add, were almost identical to M.D. medical colleges with the exception that Homeopathy was included. Happily, in Arizona the return of Homeopathic medical colleges is already well underway but that is the subject of a different thread. To continue, here is the web page: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,40 from the National Center for Homeopathy regarding the use of Homeopathy for epidemic diseases. Here are the comments regarding polio: "Closer to our present time, there were the Polio epidemics in the mid-1950s. Dr. Alonzo Shadman, a homeopath in the Boston area, emphasized that until *actual paralysis* was observed, it was hard to distinguish the prodromal symptoms of Polio from those of the common cold -- and he treated many "summer colds" during the time. Were they incipient polio? No one can tell." "Dr. Francisco Eizayaga of Argentina, tells of a polio epidemic in Buenos Aires in 1957, where the symptoms of the epidemic resembled those of the remedy Lathyrus sativa. The homeopathic doctors and pharmacies prescribed Lathyrus 30c as a prophylactic, and "thousands of doses" were distributed. "Nobody registered a case of contagion." Eizayaga points out that in other epidemics of polio, Gelsemium was the indicated remedy -- emphasizing, again, the need for individualization." "Homeopathy has been very effective in treating many of the epidemics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Why the successes are not better known is a subject for conjecture." Does this mean that Homeopathy had a cure for polio all along? Of course not. What it means is that some of the respondents of this newsgroup, for example YOU D.C., have made the error of placing ALL of your faith in the Francis study and accepting blindly its conclusion that the vaccine itself was responsible for the elimination of the disease - a specious conclusion - and have not even considered the possibility that other ways of stopping that disease might have existed. YOU have accepted, almost without question, the utilization of a single test methodology indeed on a large population sample I will admit, but that is NOT sufficient to draw any useful conclusions given the nature of the disease itself. Rather, what bothers me is that everyone, relying on the supposed utility of the vaccines, stopped the search for a cure and how long will it be before some "mutation" of this virus, which evades the antibodies, appears and a newer even "stronger" vaccine is needed - and another... and another???? By an incredible coincidence, is this not EXACTLY the same type of problem with using antibiotics against bacteria and the "resistance" which their targets eventually form? I suggest that Homeopathy and its research be allowed to continue because THEY are apparently the only ones working on or that have suggested a cure for the disease and substances which can be taken as a viable prophylaxis - both of which, astoundingly, standard medicine does not appear to have bothered with. Citizen Jimserac > How in the hell did it end up that > those getting the placebo, if I recall > it was colored water... how did THEY > end up getting a higher incidence of > polio than that part of the sample > that got no vaccinations. Read it again. The "placebo" and "observe" groups had similar rates, but the "refuse" group had rates less than either "placebo" or "observe," although greater than the actual vaccinated group. The speculation (and it's only speculation, being /post/ /hoc/) was that the refusal group had other differences. Keeping in mind the transmission route for polio, that's not hard to see. Even a little less contact (never mind trips to the swimming hole) with others would make a difference. > Second, after all the hoopla over > results which were known in advance > to be APPARENTLY favorable... It wasn't the first trial, please. If there weren't already substantial data on safety and effectiveness then it would have been insane to involve that many children in a full-up field trial. > could you explain how the vaccine got > "tainted" which outraged the public > and led many to avoid it and the > "booster" shots. Separate subject. Now you're talking about quality control, not science. > Third, why exactly were the > "booster" shots needed? Separate subject. > Fourth - could you explain the tradeoff > between the extent and manner in which the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the immune system to produce the > antibodies. I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter, nor is it relevant to the issue you originally brought: whether vaccine effectiveness is demonstrated by actual controlled trials. By all means go and dig into the subject; it's certainly not secret or anything, just not of interest to the general public. > Lastly, this test, convincing though it > may be to some, was done in the mid 1950's. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > version of the deactivated > virus was ineffective? You're heading back into your "if it isn't perfect it isn't any good at all" mode. One would hope that people didn't wait for "perfect" and in the process consign huge numbers of people to death or lifelong disability. One would also hope that having achieved "good enough to use" researchers didn't stop and declare the job done. > This single test is NOT enough to > convince me that the vaccine [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > especially sewage control (see > web page mentioned below). Which would be a dandy explanation, except that it doesn't explain double blind results. Nor does it explain why the "placebo" and "observe" groups had very similar rates of polio. As for "single test," surely you don't think that it was the last one? It was just the most widely publicized. There have been plenty of others since, but you don't see them in the newspapers. > Rather, what bothers me is that everyone, > relying on the supposed utility of the vaccines, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and a newer even "stronger" vaccine is needed - > and another... and another???? Well, that depends on the virus being around. It's gone in the Western Hemisphere and disappearing elsewhere. Aside from some demagogues who have been interfering, we would have been close to elimination worldwide by now. At which point, like with smallpox, the questions of vaccine safety and virus mutation would have been (and still will eventually) be quite moot. > By an incredible coincidence, is this > not EXACTLY the same type of problem with using > antibiotics against bacteria and the "resistance" > which their targets eventually form? No. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <c03bfeef-5c60-4951-a685-33ed29b25...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: Ah, with regards to that "Francis" report, ya it was a double blinded placebo study all right and on a LARGE population which pleases me greatly ... but there are some SERIOUS criticisms of that report, here are a few from just one site: from: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=252526 "1955, Journal of American Statistical Assn 50: 1005- 1013 stated of the Francis report Quote: 59% of the trial was worthless because of lack of adequate controls. The remaining 41% may have been alright, but contains internal evidence of bias in favour of the vaccinated. He also pointed out that Quote: the initial decision (later changed) to vaccinate all willing second graders and to use the nonvolunteer second graders and all first and third-grade children as uninoculated controls nearly invalidated the 1954 trials... Placebo-inoculated volunteers eexperienced significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated nonvolunteers" The reviewer, Mr Brownlee, also pointed out that the National Foundation had proclaimed gamma globulin effective after similar trials, when it had been later proven useless." Comment from Citizen Jimserac: Gee D.C., your TOTAL FAITH in the so-called "Francis" report seems misplaced. Would you care to "amend" or withdraw you support of it? You are welcome to! "Lancet April 23, 1955, p 851 reported on the Francis report Quote: Bulbospinal paralysis, 81 - 94% protection. Spinal paralytic form 60 % protection. Non-paralytic form, NIL protection Which, frankly, doesn't make sense, but never mind. BMJ, April 30, 1955 says about the Francis Report, that large sections of the trial were subject to doubtful procedures, open to criticism; for instance Quote: 1) innoculated children on one large section were not the same age as the uninnoculated controls 2) childrren to be innoculated were those whose parents agreed to have it done. It is recognised amongst statisticians involved in similar assessments that the social position and care in volunteer families are usually superior to that in controls see here: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m...le.jhtml?term= " What is more interesting still, is the fact that Dr Sabin, of the Sabin vaccine "fame" in an article in Skope Weekly, January 21, 1959, page 4, cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children given a full series of Salk Inoculations. Five months after the third dose, 44% were without demonstrable antibody for Type 1 poliovirus, while 53% were without type 3. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1, and 84% for Type 3. Comment from Citizen Jimserac: What's this, on a LARGE POPULATION STUDY, and after 3 DOSES of the magical vaccine, nearly HALF the subjects did not have the anitbodies for the polio virus... How VERY CURIOUS! "Quoted in the Tri State Medical Journal, February 1959, :The folly in the continued use of a killed polio virus vaccine" Fred. R. Klenner." "The other interesting bit is a letter from England in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 which stated that Quote: an analysis of the figures (Salk Polio Vaccine) shows that the incident of paralytic cases among the vaccinated children who had poliomyelitis was 40% as compared with 44% among the unvaccinated children." which makes a monkey of the protection stats for paralytic polio in the Francis trials.... The statistics from the Polio Surveillance Units stats are very revealing, (except you won't be able to see them, because they are now classified.... and if you don't believe me, try and get hold of copies of them) What they show is that in 1955 there were 7,886 cases of paralytic polio, 15% of them, were vaccinated. 1956, 7210 paralytic cases, 16% vaccinated. Non paralytic polio 6027 cases, 32% vaccinated. 1957, 2172 casses p polio, 30% vaccinated, 2,603 np polio, 54% vaccinated. 1958, 3122 p polio cases, 33% vaccinated. (Note well, that at this point in the medical literature, it states that ONLY 36% of USA's population had been vaccinated with the first 3 primary doses Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 2, No 2, March - April 1980, pages 277-281 Eradication of Poliomyelitis in the United States: A commentary on the Salk Reviews by Dr John P Fox, and notice that it was also required that booster doses be given EVERY year. The article just mentioned also pointed out that most of the available evidence for antibody persistence after either IPV or OPV is of questionable validity...) 1959, 5,594 p polio cases 50%+ cases vaccinated which equals 3726 cases, of which 928 had had three or more doses) 1960, 2,545 p polio cases, 210 deaths, 77% fully vaccinated (four doses) (These last three years were given to me verbally, by Dr Herbert Ratner, who had copies...) (You also have to remember that in this time, the definition of polio was changed and refined. In 1956, "Vaccine satellite cases" of which there were many, were "dropped". The PSU didn't accept these as vaccine related - they are listed under unvaccinated. But in 1960, with the introduction of SABIN vaccine, satellite cases were once again reported and classified as vaccine induced". Conclusion from Citizen Jimserac: I belive D.C. and others will have NO acceptable answers to these criticisms and will therefore resort to innuendo, insults or the usual clever remarks to cover up their inability to defend the vaccination concept. The brazen attempt to wave the "Francis" report as some sort of "proof" of anything has failed. Nice try D.C., go have a drink of that lourdes water and quit trying to prove the impossible. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <c03bfeef-5c60-4951-a685-33ed29b25...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > from: > http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=252526 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The remaining 41% may have been alright, but contains internal > evidence of bias in favour of the vaccinated. Without more detail of the criticism, it appears that the author is misrepresenting the trial design. > He also pointed out that > Quote: > the initial decision (later changed) to vaccinate all willing second > graders and to use the nonvolunteer second graders and all first and > third-grade children as uninoculated controls nearly invalidated the > 1954 trials... "Later changed." One might wonder why someone would bring that up as a criticism. > Placebo-inoculated volunteers eexperienced > significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated > nonvolunteers" Misrepresentation of the comparison. See the statistical analysis in the footnote on page 286. > The reviewer, Mr Brownlee, also pointed out that the National > Foundation had proclaimed gamma globulin effective after similar > trials, when it had been later proven useless." I seem to have missed the trial of 1.8 million subjects with gamma globulin. > "Lancet April 23, 1955, p 851 reported on the Francis report > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 1) innoculated children on one large section were not the same age as > the uninnoculated controls "Observed" vs. "placebo." The "Observed" group were both older and younger, and had the same rates as the "placebo" group. > 2) childrren to be innoculated were those whose parents agreed to have > it done. It is recognised amongst statisticians involved in similar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m...le.jhtml?term= Yup. Which is why the "observed" group was so important. The "refusers" indeed showed a lower rate than either the "placebo" or "observed" groups. So? > What is more interesting still, is the fact that Dr Sabin, of the > Sabin vaccine "fame" in an article in Skope Weekly, January 21, 1959, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1, and 84% > for Type 3. Yup. Interesting no end. However, the kids still had a markedly lower rate of polio. > Comment from Citizen Jimserac: > What's this, on a LARGE POPULATION STUDY, > and after 3 DOSES of the magical vaccine, > nearly HALF the subjects did not have the anitbodies > for the polio virus... How VERY CURIOUS! Yup. Most interesting. So? > "Quoted in the Tri State Medical Journal, February 1959, :The folly in > the continued use of a killed polio virus vaccine" Fred. R. Klenner." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which makes a monkey of the protection stats for paralytic polio in > the Francis trials.... Very interesting, no doubt, but has no bearing on whether the vaccine prevents the disease in the first place. (Subject now changes to mass epidemiology.) > The brazen attempt to wave the "Francis" report > as some sort of "proof" of anything has failed. I'm well aware that you will not find any amount of evidence to be acceptable; however, you have been going on about the absence of placebo-controlled double-blinded trials of vaccine effectiveness. Example presented. > Nice try D.C., go have a drink of that lourdes > water and quit trying to prove the impossible. Thank you for admitting openly to having a totally closed mind on the subject. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <5b3529be-ae0b-4b19-b440-b02655cae...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Without more detail of the criticism, it appears that the > author is misrepresenting the trial design. I've heard the Journal of the American Statistical Association does that all the time, they really let just any article get published and never read or referree it, so yes this is really quite possible (NOT!) > > He also pointed out that > > Quote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I seem to have missed the trial of 1.8 million subjects with > gamma globulin. did you miss the part where it says "later proven useless"? > > "Lancet April 23, 1955, p 851 reported on the Francis report > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Yup. Interesting no end. > However, the kids still had a markedly lower rate of polio. YA TRUE but without the antibodies which were supposed to have been produced by the vaccine!!! So what caused the lower rate? > > Comment from CitizenJimserac: > > What's this, on a LARGE POPULATION STUDY, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > acceptable; however, you have been going on about the absence of > placebo-controlled double-blinded trials of vaccine effectiveness. No not any amount of evidence - I just want to see the pro vaccination people meet the same "standards" that they require for Homeopathy. So far, they haven't. > Example presented. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thank you for admitting openly to having a totally closed mind on > the subject. Your welcome and it was my pleasure. You know what - I'll bet that drop in the rate of polio was due to only one thing -> placebo effect. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <5b3529be-ae0b-4b19-b440-b02655cae...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > just any article get published and never > read or referree it, so yes this is really quite possible (NOT!) The problem is, you're quoting from a secondary source (not the Journal) with an ax to grind and as usual that source is misrepresenting the original. If you really want to see where that comes from, drop the $14 and see what it really says rather than taking someone else's word for it (including mine.) >> > What is more interesting still, is the fact that Dr Sabin, of the >> > Sabin vaccine "fame" in an article in Skope Weekly, January 21, 1959, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to have been produced by the vaccine!!! > So what caused the lower rate? Good question. I can think of several possible answers, but don't see how they are relevant to the question of whether the vaccine worked. >> > The brazen attempt to wave the "Francis" report >> > as some sort of "proof" of anything has failed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the pro vaccination people meet the same "standards" > that they require for Homeopathy. So far, they haven't. You mean like "demonstrated effectiveness in statistically valid blinded trials?" | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 17, 6:29 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> ss. > > No not any amount of evidence - I just want to see > > the pro vaccination people meet the same "standards" > > that they require for Homeopathy. So far, they haven't. > > You mean like "demonstrated effectiveness in statistically > valid blinded trials?" YES, that's what I mean and the Francis report is NOT IT. Citizen Jimserac > On May 17, 6:29 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> ss. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > YES, that's what I mean and the Francis report > is NOT IT. Aside from the fact that you don't want it to be, your objection would be: 1) Not enough participants to be statistically valid? 2) Insufficient randomization of the participants? 3) Insufficient blinding of the test? 4) Ambiguous endpoints? Primary source references, please. Regurgitating someone reinterpreting the words of someone else raises too many obvious issues. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <16b26d57-8d64-434f-873c-5a4b47b1d...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > reinterpreting the words of someone else raises too many > obvious issues. The reference source is the quote from one of the vaccine inventors who said that nearly half (44%) the vaccine subjects did not show the antibodies that they were supposed to have stimulated by the full complement of 3 injections after only 3 months. I've already posted the link. Now what, you want to say that the article which reported his quote was falsified? It is kind of funny that when Homeopathy is involved you will bend over backwards to interpret just about anything presented, even by fully credentialed researchers, negatively and when vaccination is involved you will bend over backwards to interpret everything in a positive manner. I submit to you the possibility of using the SAME STANDARD to judge BOTH. The SAME STANDARD FOR BOTH! Citizen Jimserac >> In message <16b26d57-8d64-434f-873c-5a4b47b1d...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> reinterpreting the words of someone else raises too many >> obvious issues. > The reference source is the quote > from one of the vaccine inventors [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that the article which reported > his quote was falsified? This has --- what? --- to do with whether the field trial showed that the vaccine resulted lower rates of polio? It's not a complicated question. I'm not trying to side-track into theory here, just as I won't debate the "water memory" theory. I'm just looking for the end result: DOES IT WORK? Polio vaccines work. No native polio in the western hemisphere. Measles vaccines work. No native measles in the western hemisphere. Show me something remotely as clear-cut for homeopathy. Trying to discredit other forms of effective medicine don't make homeopathy effective -- they just show that you're desperate to lower the bar to the point where "ineffective" is acceptable. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ DC, if you want to mislead people about vaccines, START YOUR OWN SUBJECT LINE. Or better yet, start your own NG. Now.................. Back to the subject. > It's not a complicated question. I'm not trying to > side-track into theory here, just as I won't debate > the "water memory" theory. I'm just looking for the > end result: DOES IT WORK? I'm just looking for the end result too, do VACCINES WORK? and I won't debate the flawed Francis study, the errors are obvious. How does it feel to have your own brand of SKEPTICISM turned against you. Kind of impossible to argue against, eh? FRUSTRATING, isn't it? Citizen Jimserac >> It's not a complicated question. I'm not trying to >> side-track into theory here, just as I won't debate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the flawed Francis study, the errors are > obvious. Ah, yes. The appeal to "obvious" when you can't come up with anything substantive. From <3em6g5-bp.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>: > Aside from the fact that you don't want it to be, your objection > would be: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reinterpreting the words of someone else raises too many > obvious issues. Now remind us what, aside from the "obvious" fact that it came to results you don't like, did you find wrong with the Francis Field Trial? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ Wrong subject OK, we'll get it back on track. tools should die in a pandemic! There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan Ah, David, thanks for making it so very clear what you are. > OK, we'll get it back on track. > > tools should die in a pandemic! > > There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? One other point. Tools will not die in a pandemic. Tools will however, help those who are stricken. David on the other hand might be running to his doctor who cannot help him. Ah well, ain't Karma great? > Ah, David, thanks for making it so very clear what you are. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? >Ah, David, thanks for making it so very clear what you are. What I am is fed up with your whining about how the nasty old posters are going off-topic from the subject line of the thread. So I give you an on-topic posting and what do I get? More whining from you. No pleasing some people. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan >> OK, we'll get it back on track. >> >> tools should die in a pandemic! >> >> There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? > In article <w8SdnfwgtMmTv6nVnZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@giganews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > >> There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? Avoiding News' question about PROOF of Vaccination efficacy by using the old "off topic" excuse, eh? You see now the problems involved when people ask me to "prove" Homeopathy. Let it be a lesson for you. Citizen Jimserac > > In article <w8SdnfwgtMmTv6nVnZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@giganews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Let it be a lesson for you. Newsie's request for proof was absurd. 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt"??? What a stupid request. And, anything that would be posted as proof would be rejected by the anti-science know-nothings like Newsie and you. A waste of time. Meanwhil, have you found any proof that "like cures like" or that water has memory? Mark, do NOT take your stupid pills before going online. The fact is you cannot prove that vaccines work as advertised. And yet you and the other Aunties demand "proof"from everyone else. You must be from the gov. Homeopathy on the other hand CAN come a lot closer to "beyond a shadow of doubt" than vaccines can. I understand that this is a blow to your weak position here, but what is, is. You would do well to learn when to keep your mouth shut. On May 22, 6:42 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 10:26 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Let it be a lesson for you. Newsie's request for proof was absurd. 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt"??? What a stupid request. And, anything that would be posted as proof would be rejected by the anti-science know-nothings like Newsie and you. A waste of time. Meanwhil, have you found any proof that "like cures like" or that water has memory? > Mark, do NOT take your stupid pills before going online. The fact is you > cannot prove that vaccines work as advertised. And yet you and the other > Aunties demand "proof"from everyone else. You must be from the gov. > Homeopathy on the other hand CAN come a lot closer to "beyond a shadow of > doubt" than vaccines can. I understand that this is a blow to your weak > position here, but what is, is. Exactly the point, well stated. The anti-Homeopathists want PROOF that it works when much of it is still being RESEARCHED but then use CLINICAL EVIDENCE to PROVE TO THEMSELVES that Vaccines work, the very type of "proof" that they forbid the Homeopathists. If you apply the exact type of PROOF that they look for to modern medicine, MUCH OF IT fails. It is that simple, but they will never admit it their utilization of double standards and constantly shifting standards of "proof". Citizen Jimserac Awww, Gee Whiz! You are "fed up". Then we won't be seeing your posts again? Again, you have made if very clear what you are. You will not be missed. >>Ah, David, thanks for making it so very clear what you are. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>> There. Nice, clear, unambiguous answer. Happy now? >> It's not a complicated question. I'm not trying to >> side-track into theory here, just as I won't debate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm just looking for the end result >too, do VACCINES WORK? Yes. Next question. > and I won't debate >the flawed Francis study, the errors are >obvious. Please list them in point form. >How does it feel to have your own >brand of SKEPTICISM turned against you. >Kind of impossible to argue against, eh? > >FRUSTRATING, isn't it? No. It is amusing, however, to see you yet again demonstrate your anencephaly. >Citizen Jimserac SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Please Provide positive proof. You know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that vaccines work as intended. Something a bit better than old tired statistics please. Statistics are like poles, you can make them say anything you wish. Proof is a difficult thing to come up with sometimes................. >>I'm just looking for the end result >>too, do VACCINES WORK? > > Yes. > Please Provide positive proof. > You know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Proof is a difficult thing to come up with > sometimes................."Peter Bowditch" That they CANNOT DO. You will note that they all VANISHED as soon as you asked for proof. Citizen Jimserac >> Please Provide positive proof. >> You know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That they CANNOT DO. That's because "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is the subject of religion, not science. Science is all about doubt. > You will note that they all > VANISHED as soon as you asked > for proof. Vanish, Hell. I killfiled Tools years ago. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ You will instruct the jury to adopt your definition of "beyond a shadow of doubt" before they determine you guilt or innocence, right? It's only religion so you won't need it in court , right? You have me "kill filed"? Cool! I remember a kid in grade school who would put his hands over his ears when the teacher corrected him. It has been a long time, but I wonder, was that you? And you are STILL doing it? > In message > <978aa8ee-df58-430f-8217-fffc10d7f2b2@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > You will instruct the jury to adopt your definition of "beyond a shadow of >doubt" before they determine you guilt or innocence, right? It's only >religion so you won't need it in court , right? Juries do not decide cases "beyond a shadow of a doubt." It's "beyond a reasonable doubt." In criminal cases, that is. You're welcome. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan >You have me "kill filed"? Cool! >I remember a kid in grade school who would put his hands over his ears when [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> Vanish, Hell. I killfiled Tools years ago. Ok, so go with a "reasonable" doubt. By the way who gets to determine what is "reasonable"? What is "reasonable" for one may not be so for another. So why would one persons "reasonable" be better than another's? History has shown that what the dominate bunch says is "reasonable" later turned out to be completely wrong. >> You will instruct the jury to adopt your definition of "beyond a shadow >> of [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>> >>> Vanish, Hell. I killfiled Tools years ago. >Ok, so go with a "reasonable" doubt. By the way who gets to determine what >is "reasonable"? What is "reasonable" for one may not be so for another. So >why would one persons "reasonable" be better than another's? History has >shown that what the dominate bunch says is "reasonable" later turned out to >be completely wrong. Yep. And juries sometimes convict people who later turn out to be innocent, or free people who turn out to be guilty. You expect any human institution to be perfect? If so, your life will be a long series of disappointments. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan >>> You will instruct the jury to adopt your definition of "beyond a shadow >>> of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>> >>>> Vanish, Hell. I killfiled Tools years ago. Just better >>Ok, so go with a "reasonable" doubt. By the way who gets to determine what >>is "reasonable"? What is "reasonable" for one may not be so for another. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Vanish, Hell. I killfiled Tools years ago. >On May 12, 9:58 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> again I offer my 75000 gallons of pool water to send to you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >impressive scientific credentials which are listed >right there at his site. Dr. Roy? What a hoot! Dr. 'impressive scientific credentials' Roy was recently totally taken in by a guy claiming to burn salt water. The guy did nothing more than use radiowaves to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then fusing those back to water (ie burning) but according to Dr. Roy, it was the greatest discovery in water science of the last 150 years. Dr. Roy, despite his impressive credentials, has apparently lost his marbles. >Dr. Roy's comments, "It's NOT "Just Water" Anymore, >addresses the common fallacy which you have [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message