Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Amanda Peet (and the Snake-oil Vigilantes) ... Vs the Medical Establishment

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 21 Jul 2008 01:00 GMT
News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Lover
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b_113817.html

Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment

Posted July 19, 2008 | 01:26 PM (EST)
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm
Vaccination Industry  Liars

This week, actress Amanda Peet called parents who don't vaccinate
their kids "parasites," and then essentially went on to lie when she
announced that scientists have concluded there is "no association
between autism and vaccines."

Peet saw fit to blast "the media and journalists" and "a few fringe
medical groups and parent advocacy groups" for "presenting vaccine
safety as a controversy." She thinks the debate, save for a few
dangerous holdouts, is over.

I thought that Ms. Peet (and her ill-advised advisors such as Dr. Paul
Offit) might want to see from whence these parasitic, fringey parents
and doctors have been getting their cues of late.

Here are just a few recent examples:

July 15, 2008 - A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says
that some members want "specific objectives on vaccine research"
included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research
program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal
researchers to consider "shortfalls" in epidemiological studies cited
as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al);
as well as a specific plan "for researching vaccines as a potential
cause of autism." The workgroup also says that the final research
agenda should "state that the issue is open."

July 14, 2008 - Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and
Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that
current federal autism research "shows a strong preference to fund
genetic-based studies," even though there is, "growing evidence that
suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may
play a role" in autism. He cites a recent study on vaccines and
monkeys, presented as a poster (unreviewed) at the International
Society for Autism Research, which, "suggests that research on
primates is about to emerge that will provide additional evidence of
environmental contributions to ASD."

Rep. Miller specifically cites the case of Hannah Poling as "just one
example that is suggestive of very important lines of inquiry," and he
recommends some "very suggestive writings along these lines," such as
the April 5, 2008 letter from Terry Poling, (Hannah's mother, an
attorney and former nurse) to The New York Times titled, "Vaccines,
Autism and Our Daughter, Hannah."

Finally, Rep Miller writes that HHS "has lost much of the public's
trust," and urges Mr. Leavitt to form a Secretarial-level Autism
Advisory Board to provide public feedback, liaise with parents groups,
and "assist in reestablishing the public trust" that Ms. Peet herself
said was lagging. Miller recommends tapping groups such as Safe Minds,
Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks and the Autism Research Institute for
their, "experience evaluating research' and an "in-depth knowledge of
the current body of ASD research." All four groups support
vaccine-autism research, and thus presumably fall within the rubric of
what Ms. Peet terms as "fringe."

May 12, 2008 - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the
American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report
tells CBS News that, "Officials have been too quick to dismiss the
hypothesis as irrational," and says they "don't want to pursue a
hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public
health community at large by scaring people."

But, unlike Amanda Peet, Dr. Healy believes that, "the public's
smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I
don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific
hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."

April 21, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at
a rally in Pennsylvania, answers a question about autism by saying:
"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are
suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. The science right now
is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

April 11, 2008 - The HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group (comprised of
the nation's leading vaccine experts) meets to review the CDC's draft
research proposal for vaccine safety issues. Among the top vaccine
questions that CDC wants answered: "Are neurodevelopmental disorders,
including autism, clinical outcomes of vaccine injury?" And, "Is
immunization associated with increased risk for neurological
deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?"

March 29, 2008 - Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking
about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: "If a child was immunized,
got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was
pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off
some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
And she adds: "I think we have to have an open mind about this."
Meanwhile, the CDC website lists autism studies it currently funds on
thimerosal and the MMR vaccine.

March 11, 2008 - The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety
Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers
at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with
mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24
months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within
one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Included in this vaccine safety network is the US health insurance
industry - which is now being forced by many states to cover autism
treatments, and wants to know what possible role vaccines are playing
in the neurodevelopmental health of children. A month later, the CISA
network announces it has "formed a working group to study methods
related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization."

February 25, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain says at a
rally in Texas that "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise
amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back
and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to
do with a preservative in vaccines." McCain notes that there's
"divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other
side that are credible scientists that are saying that's not the cause
of it."

February 22, 2008 - Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case
filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a "test
case" of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by
some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical
decision. HHS doctors admit that the "cause" of Hannah's "autistic
encephalopathy" was "vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that
exceeded metabolic reserves," which exacerbated her underlying
mitochondrial dysfunction. At 19 months of age, Hannah was given 5
injections containing nine vaccines.

January, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton,
responding to a questionnaire, says that autism is "epidemic," and
that she is, "committed to make investments to find the causes of
autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." When
asked if she will support an autism study of vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated children, she replies: "Yes. We don't know what, if any,
kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find
out."

So there you have it. Since the beginning of the year, we have heard
from:

1) Three United States Senators
2) The next President (and possibly Vice President) of the country
3) The Director of the CDC (and her "open mind")
4) The former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross
5) The Chairman of a House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight
6) A respected Pediatric Neurologist and Resident at Johns Hopkins
University Medical School (Dr. Jon Poling)
7) The HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group
8) The CDC's Vaccine Safety Research Agenda authors
9) Medical personnel at the HHS Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
10) The Strategic Planning Workgroup of the Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee
11) The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network
12) Leading autism researchers at Johns Hopkins University Medical
School
13) America's health insurance companies

Virtually all of the above advocate, or have at least considered,
exploring the possible links between vaccines and autism.

I am not a parent, and I am not anti-vaccine. But if I were going to
listen to experts on this subject, I would be more likely to consult
some of these people, rather than a well-meaning but grossly
misinformed actress who is guided by a doctor who will likely make
money from his own work helping to develop a childhood vaccine.

Ms. Peet apologized for calling parents "parasites," and that's nice.
But it is her continued use of the "fringe" label, I believe, that
will ultimately come back to bite her the hardest.

The vaccine-autism debate may be over in the firmly closed minds of
Peet and Offit, but for serious, rational thinkers such as those
listed above, this debate (and the real work that lies ahead) has only
just begun.
Mark Probert - 21 Jul 2008 22:57 GMT
> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
>
> Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment

Factual medical documention left intact. Idle conjecture, ad homiem,
and political rants removed.

oops, nothing left.
Jan Drew - 22 Jul 2008 02:48 GMT
News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Lover
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...

Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment

Posted July 19, 2008 | 01:26 PM (EST)
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm
Vaccination Industry  Liars

This week, actress Amanda Peet called parents who don't vaccinate
their kids "parasites," and then essentially went on to lie when she
announced that scientists have concluded there is "no association
between autism and vaccines."

Peet saw fit to blast "the media and journalists" and "a few fringe
medical groups and parent advocacy groups" for "presenting vaccine
safety as a controversy." She thinks the debate, save for a few
dangerous holdouts, is over.

I thought that Ms. Peet (and her ill-advised advisors such as Dr. Paul
Offit) might want to see from whence these parasitic, fringey parents
and doctors have been getting their cues of late.

Here are just a few recent examples:

July 15, 2008 - A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says
that some members want "specific objectives on vaccine research"
included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research
program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal
researchers to consider "shortfalls" in epidemiological studies cited
as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al);
as well as a specific plan "for researching vaccines as a potential
cause of autism." The workgroup also says that the final research
agenda should "state that the issue is open."

July 14, 2008 - Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and
Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that
current federal autism research "shows a strong preference to fund
genetic-based studies," even though there is, "growing evidence that
suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may
play a role" in autism. He cites a recent study on vaccines and
monkeys, presented as a poster (unreviewed) at the International
Society for Autism Research, which, "suggests that research on
primates is about to emerge that will provide additional evidence of
environmental contributions to ASD."

Rep. Miller specifically cites the case of Hannah Poling as "just one
example that is suggestive of very important lines of inquiry," and he
recommends some "very suggestive writings along these lines," such as
the April 5, 2008 letter from Terry Poling, (Hannah's mother, an
attorney and former nurse) to The New York Times titled, "Vaccines,
Autism and Our Daughter, Hannah."

Finally, Rep Miller writes that HHS "has lost much of the public's
trust," and urges Mr. Leavitt to form a Secretarial-level Autism
Advisory Board to provide public feedback, liaise with parents groups,
and "assist in reestablishing the public trust" that Ms. Peet herself
said was lagging. Miller recommends tapping groups such as Safe Minds,
Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks and the Autism Research Institute for
their, "experience evaluating research' and an "in-depth knowledge of
the current body of ASD research." All four groups support
vaccine-autism research, and thus presumably fall within the rubric of
what Ms. Peet terms as "fringe."

May 12, 2008 - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the
American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report
tells CBS News that, "Officials have been too quick to dismiss the
hypothesis as irrational," and says they "don't want to pursue a
hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public
health community at large by scaring people."

But, unlike Amanda Peet, Dr. Healy believes that, "the public's
smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I
don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific
hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."

April 21, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at
a rally in Pennsylvania, answers a question about autism by saying:
"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are
suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. The science right now
is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

April 11, 2008 - The HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group (comprised of
the nation's leading vaccine experts) meets to review the CDC's draft
research proposal for vaccine safety issues. Among the top vaccine
questions that CDC wants answered: "Are neurodevelopmental disorders,
including autism, clinical outcomes of vaccine injury?" And, "Is
immunization associated with increased risk for neurological
deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?"

March 29, 2008 - Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking
about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: "If a child was immunized,
got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was
pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off
some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
And she adds: "I think we have to have an open mind about this."
Meanwhile, the CDC website lists autism studies it currently funds on
thimerosal and the MMR vaccine.

March 11, 2008 - The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety
Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers
at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with
mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24
months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within
one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Included in this vaccine safety network is the US health insurance
industry - which is now being forced by many states to cover autism
treatments, and wants to know what possible role vaccines are playing
in the neurodevelopmental health of children. A month later, the CISA
network announces it has "formed a working group to study methods
related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization."

February 25, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain says at a
rally in Texas that "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise
amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back
and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to
do with a preservative in vaccines." McCain notes that there's
"divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other
side that are credible scientists that are saying that's not the cause
of it."

February 22, 2008 - Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case
filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a "test
case" of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by
some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical
decision. HHS doctors admit that the "cause" of Hannah's "autistic
encephalopathy" was "vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that
exceeded metabolic reserves," which exacerbated her underlying
mitochondrial dysfunction. At 19 months of age, Hannah was given 5
injections containing nine vaccines.

January, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton,
responding to a questionnaire, says that autism is "epidemic," and
that she is, "committed to make investments to find the causes of
autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." When
asked if she will support an autism study of vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated children, she replies: "Yes. We don't know what, if any,
kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find
out."

So there you have it. Since the beginning of the year, we have heard
from:

1) Three United States Senators
2) The next President (and possibly Vice President) of the country
3) The Director of the CDC (and her "open mind")
4) The former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross
5) The Chairman of a House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight
6) A respected Pediatric Neurologist and Resident at Johns Hopkins
University Medical School (Dr. Jon Poling)
7) The HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group
8) The CDC's Vaccine Safety Research Agenda authors
9) Medical personnel at the HHS Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
10) The Strategic Planning Workgroup of the Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee
11) The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network
12) Leading autism researchers at Johns Hopkins University Medical
School
13) America's health insurance companies

Virtually all of the above advocate, or have at least considered,
exploring the possible links between vaccines and autism.

I am not a parent, and I am not anti-vaccine. But if I were going to
listen to experts on this subject, I would be more likely to consult
some of these people, rather than a well-meaning but grossly
misinformed actress who is guided by a doctor who will likely make
money from his own work helping to develop a childhood vaccine.

Ms. Peet apologized for calling parents "parasites," and that's nice.
But it is her continued use of the "fringe" label, I believe, that
will ultimately come back to bite her the hardest.

The vaccine-autism debate may be over in the firmly closed minds of
Peet and Offit, but for serious, rational thinkers such as those
listed above, this debate (and the real work that lies ahead) has only
just begun.
Mike - 22 Jul 2008 03:00 GMT
>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b_113817.html

>> Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment
>
> Factual medical documention left intact. Idle conjecture, ad homiem,
> and political rants removed.
>
> oops, nothing left.

Incorrect. There were no ad hominem attacks in the text. And no
political rants either unless quoting or mentioning a politician
qualifies as a political rant. Did the previous poster read before posting?
(link to the article restored, it was cut off by the software used by
the previous poster)
Mark Probert - 22 Jul 2008 22:35 GMT
> >> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> political rants either unless quoting or mentioning a politician
> qualifies as a political rant.

What the politicians were saying are politcal rants. Period. They are
not scientific evidence.

And, make no mistake, Kirby is pure anti-vac. If you do not see this,
sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
vernono - 22 Jul 2008 23:24 GMT
On Jul 21, 10:00 pm, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> >> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> political rants either unless quoting or mentioning a politician
> qualifies as a political rant.

What the politicians were saying are politcal rants. Period. They are
not scientific evidence.

And, make no mistake, Kirby is pure anti-vac. If you do not see this,
sharpen your "read between the lines skills."

Let's see. anti-vac.  Those poor several million service people.
Raving - 25 Jul 2008 01:26 GMT
> On Jul 21, 10:00 pm, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Let's see. anti-vac.  Those poor several million service people.

Yes, well for me there does appear to be some intriguing & tiny amount
of evidence linking vaccination to 'autistic type' dysfunction, albeit
it's "connection" to this thread is just an opportunity to present
such evidence.

[Quoting http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E7DD1430F93BA15755C0A96E9C8B63
]

Experts to Discuss One Puzzling Autism Case, as a Second Case Has
Arisen

Federal health officials on Sunday will call together some of the
world's leading experts on an obscure disease to discuss the
controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Ga., who became
autistic after receiving numerous vaccinations.

But the government has so far kept quiet a second case that some say
is more disturbing and more relevant to the meeting.  ...

Both the 9- and 6-year-olds had mitochondrial disorders, a spectrum of
genetic diseases that have received almost no attention from federal
health officials. ...
Mark Probert - 25 Jul 2008 14:18 GMT
> > "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Ga., who became
> autistic after receiving numerous vaccinations.

This is the Poling case, where the child had a mitochondrial disorder
that, after vaccinations, led to autism-like sysmptoms, not autism.
Reading the original decesion shows just that.

> But the government has so far kept quiet a second case that some say
> is more disturbing and more relevant to the meeting.  ...
>
> Both the 9- and 6-year-olds had mitochondrial disorders, a spectrum of
> genetic diseases that have received almost no attention from federal
> health officials. ...-

That part, i.e. the lack of research into mitochondrial disorders, is
true.
Jan Drew - 23 Jul 2008 02:15 GMT
>Kirby

Is not the subject.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/7f9ddcddb6219eb3

Feb 2000

John, drop dead.

Signature

Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/64a3bb7a62def6e3

Sdores wrote:

> https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_03_020804/str10126_fm.html  I
> thought this might be interesting to some.  I am just looking around about
> this and I found this one.  There are of course, a lot more.  UM MOM
> Susan,
> I am still reading it so I hope it is revelent.

It sure is relevant. This is the most important part, emphasis added:

A 33-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with a 10-day
history of vesicular rash, 2 days of cough and fever, and 12 hours of
dyspnoea, malaise and facial swelling. Her three children were
recovering uneventfully from chickenpox. She had *no past history of
varicella infection or vaccination*. She was a non-smoker, had *no
pre-existing medical conditions* and was not known to be pregnant at the
time of presentation.

IOW, this was a normal (as normal as a non-vaccinating idiot could be)
and was healthy. Her kids got sick (note that they were most likely not
vaccinated) and she left them without a mother to help raise them.

This kind of outright stupidity really pisses me off.
Mike - 23 Jul 2008 04:39 GMT
>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> What the politicians were saying are politcal rants. Period. They are
> not scientific evidence.

This is a new definition of political rant.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, rather scornfully, "it means
just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

> And, make no mistake, Kirby is pure anti-vac.

From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby). Clear enough but
not for Humpty Dumpty Mark. For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
toe the line of drug industry on vaccines". That includes everybody who
doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
should not be mandatory, or has reservations about recommended
vaccination schedule, or thinks that combination vaccines are no better
than single vaccines etc.

> If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."

Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
like palm reading, not reading between the lines.
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jul 2008 12:55 GMT
> From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby).

That's the standard line now: "I'm not anti-vaccine,
but I would never use any of them, would never give
any to future children, and don't think that there
has ever been one that is either safe or effective."

It's spin, pure and simple -- an attempt to formulate
a more acceptable marketing message.

| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Mark Probert - 23 Jul 2008 14:47 GMT
> > From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby).
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> It's spin, pure and simple -- an attempt to formulate
> a more acceptable marketing message.

Precisely. Mikey, and his anti-vac ilk are doing just that.
Mike - 24 Jul 2008 02:25 GMT
>> From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby).
>
> That's the standard line now: "I'm not anti-vaccine,
> but I would never use any of them, would never give
> any to future children, and don't think that there
> has ever been one that is either safe or effective."

Did Kirby say anything like that - "I would never use ANY of them,
never give to future children etc? No.

> It's spin, pure and simple -- an attempt to formulate
> a more acceptable marketing message.

Spin, yes. On your side. You find anti-vaccination message
where there isn't any. Unless, that is, no doubts or criticisms
are acceptable. Then they are labeled "anti-vac lies".
Mark Probert - 23 Jul 2008 14:46 GMT
> >>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
> >>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>  From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby). Clear enough but
> not for Humpty Dumpty Mark.

Just for the record, I have read every one of Kirby's diarrhea-tribes
and based on that, he is most assuredly anti-vac. He can deny it all
you want, but, there is no escaping my conclusion.

For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
> toe the line of drug industry on vaccines".

That is assinine.

That includes everybody who
> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
> should not be mandatory, or has reservations about recommended
> vaccination schedule, or thinks that combination vaccines are no better
> than single vaccines etc.

So, you are into ad hominem's. eh?

> > If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
>
> Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
> like palm reading, not reading between the lines.

So you say, incorrectly I add.
Mike - 24 Jul 2008 02:45 GMT
>>>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>>>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> and based on that, he is most assuredly anti-vac. He can deny it all
> you want, but, there is no escaping my conclusion.

You are entitled to your conclusions. You probably have excellent
mind reading and palm reading skills (not so sure about plain reading).

> For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
>> toe the line of drug industry on vaccines".
>
> That is assinine.

Do not like somebody laying bare the truth?

>  That includes everybody who
>> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> So, you are into ad hominem's. eh?

Did I say anything incorrectly? Yes, you consider everyone who doubts
medical benefits of any single vaccine an anti-vaccinationist, this is
my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
Same for the other views that define an anti-vac for you.

>>> If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
>> Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
>> like palm reading, not reading between the lines.
>
> So you say, incorrectly I add.

You apparently do not have plain reading skills.
Qualifying my statement as "incorrect" is making a statement opposite to
mine: that imputing to a person the views he does not hold is the
rightful result of skillful reading between the lines.

So, you just admitted that you indeed imputed to Kirby the views he does
not hold. Congratulations.
Mark Probert - 24 Jul 2008 22:38 GMT
> >>>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
> >>>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> You are entitled to your conclusions. You probably have excellent
> mind reading and palm reading skills (not so sure about plain reading).

My reading comprehension skills far outweigh yours.

> > For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
> >> toe the line of drug industry on vaccines".
>
> > That is assinine.
>
> Do not like somebody laying bare the truth?

No, dimwit, I do not like people intentionally mischaracterizing my
opinions.

> >  That includes everybody who
> >> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Did I say anything incorrectly?

Yes

Yes, you consider everyone who doubts
> medical benefits of any single vaccine an anti-vaccinationist,

No, some of those people I consider to be gullible dupes.

this is
> my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
> Same for the other views that define an anti-vac for you.

> >>> If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
> >> Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You apparently do not have plain reading skills.

You wish.

> Qualifying my statement as "incorrect" is making a statement opposite to
> mine: that imputing to a person the views he does not hold is the
> rightful result of skillful reading between the lines.
> So, you just admitted that you indeed imputed to Kirby the views he does
> not hold. Congratulations

Wrong. I imputed to Kirby views that he clearly holds, for those
people intelligent enough to understand what he writes.

That excludes you.
Mike - 25 Jul 2008 04:03 GMT
>>>>>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>>>>>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> No, dimwit, I do not like people intentionally mischaracterizing my
> opinions.

Insults and ad hominems are your usual fare, nothing new here.

>>>  That includes everybody who
>>>> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No, some of those people I consider to be gullible dupes.

Ok, and how do you distinguish a gullible dupe from an anti-vaccinationist?

> this is
>> my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
>> Same for the other views that define an anti-vac for you.

And what about other views? If someone says that a specific mandatory
vaccine should be voluntary, or that MMR should better be given as 3
separate jabs with one month intervals - is that person an anti-vac or a
gullible dupe or neither?

And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
deleted  provisions of bill 10942: should they be restored? Should all
vaccines recommended by CDC be automatically mandated and should the
children be able to get Gardasil jabs without parents' knowledge or
consent? (I suspect you will not answer this one - or should I imitate
your style and say 'asswer'?)

>>>>> If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
>>>> Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Wrong. I imputed to Kirby views that he clearly holds, for those
> people intelligent enough to understand what he writes.

You just confirmed your lack of reading skills and logic.
Re-iterating for curious (not for you, you are a hopeless case):

You stated that Kirby is against all vaccines and that anyone who can
read between the lines can see that.

I stated that imputing to a person the views he does not hold is NOT
reading between the lines.

You qualified the previous statement as "incorrect". We have double
negation here. So, in your opinion, imputing to a person the views he
does not hold is quite compatible with reading between the lines. And
the implication here is that yes, you can read between the lines
and you imputed to Kirby the views he does not hold, and this is why
you are so confident about my statement being "incorrect". End of story.

> That excludes you.

You are not in position to make any logical conclusions.
Mark Probert - 25 Jul 2008 14:22 GMT
> >>>>>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Insults and ad hominems are your usual fare, nothing new here.

When you lie about what I say, expect it.

> >>>  That includes everybody who
> >>>> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Ok, and how do you distinguish a gullible dupe from an anti-vaccinationist?

You would not understand the explanation.

Note that I do not believe you are a gullible dupe.

> > this is
> >> my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> separate jabs with one month intervals - is that person an anti-vac or a
> gullible dupe or neither?

For the most part, neither. However, the persons motivation for making
the claim is important. Wakefield, for instance, was motivated by his
patent and the lawyers fees.

> And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
> deleted  provisions of bill 10942: should they be restored? Should all
> vaccines recommended by CDC be automatically mandated and should the
> children be able to get Gardasil jabs without parents' knowledge or
> consent? (I suspect you will not answer this one - or should I imitate
> your style and say 'asswer'?)

Your last snide remark ends this discussion. You claim that I use
certain tactics, and you use similar ones. Hypocrite.

Bye.
Mike - 26 Jul 2008 04:31 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>  >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> You would not understand the explanation.

This is an excuse not to answer.

> Note that I do not believe you are a gullible dupe.

Why? You can read between the lines?

>>> this is
>>>> my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> For the most part, neither.

That's not consistent with your posts, you called me an anti-vac
for things like that.

> However, the persons motivation for making
> the claim is important. Wakefield, for instance, was motivated by his
> patent and the lawyers fees.

And what is the motivation of ordinary people who have no patents,
no book deals and no lawyers' fees?

>> And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
>> deleted  provisions of bill 10942: should they be restored? Should all
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Bye.

Refusal to give an answer is noted. But it was expected because this is
the third time. And it is understandable: you do not have good choices.
Saying "the provisions should not have been deleted" would expose you
as a pharma shill. Saying "the NY lawmakers did the right thing" - well,
pharma shills are not allowed to say that. Saying "I cannot get the
text" - you tried that already, without success. All you can do is
to feign outrage. Oh, and snip the rest of my post because you have
nothing to respond. Your lack of logic is demonstrated too clearly.
Jan Drew - 26 Jul 2008 05:24 GMT
On Jul 24, 11:03 pm, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 9:45 pm, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> Insults and ad hominems are your usual fare, nothing new here.

When you lie about what I say, expect it.

Hmm.

*You made a claim that you were a licensed babysitter.*

*You see, you complained  that I called Ilena at her ADVERTISED phone
listing.*

*You admitted that you stalked me to asbi.*

*Simply put, your DEMONSTRATED position is that you will never,  ever,
directly criticize Ilena for any reason whatsoever.*

Now, you were posting?

> >>> That includes everybody who
> >>>> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Ok, and how do you distinguish a gullible dupe from an
> anti-vaccinationist?

You would not understand the explanation.

Groups    View all web results »    Results 1 - 10 of about 8,280 for Mark
Probert not understand

Note that I do not believe you are a gullible dupe.

> > this is
> >> my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> separate jabs with one month intervals - is that person an anti-vac or a
> gullible dupe or neither?

For the most part, neither. However, the persons motivation for making
the claim is important. Wakefield, for instance, was motivated by his
patent and the lawyers fees.

> And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
> deleted provisions of bill 10942: should they be restored? Should all
> vaccines recommended by CDC be automatically mandated and should the
> children be able to get Gardasil jabs without parents' knowledge or
> consent? (I suspect you will not answer this one - or should I imitate
> your style and say 'asswer'?)

Your last snide remark ends this discussion. You claim that I use
certain tactics, and you use similar ones. Hypocrite.

Bye.

Actually they were questions.

LOL!  Certainly Mark S Probert doesn't make any snide remarks.

Then, has the audcity to say *Hypocrite*.
Raving - 26 Jul 2008 06:11 GMT
> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> LOL!  Certainly Mark S Probert doesn't make any snide remarks.
>
> Then, has the audcity to say *Hypocrite*.

hy·poc·ri·sy:
–noun, plural -sies.

1. 'Hypocrisy' is any argument which takes place between a pair of
identical twins.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.