From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 27, 11:22 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:


> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
> questions in
> an open mainstream venue.

Because they are stoopid questions, the ones that Jan Drew does not
have a clue about.
From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 28, 4:10 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 27, 11:22 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
> >> questions in
> >> an open mainstream venue.
>
> >Because they are stoopid questions, the ones that Jan Drew does not
> >have a clue about.
>
> She also seems oblivious to the fact that the questions have been
> answered on several occasions in several places.

That is the tactics of the anti-vac liar. They ask a question, get an
answer, and ask the same question a few weeks later as if they never
asked the question the first time.

Their questions are "loaded questions" and portray a false concept.
Like the questions asked here.

From: AusShane on

>
> Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
> made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
> vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?

Oh I don't think so

1) I doubt I could do a better job of demolishing the credibility of
the website than the internet community has already done - hence why
scopies law came into being. See the interent community is a bit like
science its self regulating - the charlatons soon get called out - as
has happened to the other steaming piles of ordure answers in genesis
and the discovery institute, where rational people have taken the time
and trouble to debunk the lies and distortions. All that happens is
they shift the goalposts and use another fantastic approach - as you
do I believe we are on to aluminium in vaccines now as the 'deadly
neurotoxin ? This is not about evidence its about propaganda for an
insane ideological world view.

2) If I was ever foolish enough to waste the time and effort to do so
it wouldn't make any difference would it. The very fact that you are
even defending the website as a credible source tells me that it would
be a pointless exercise. You would simply come back with some other
distortion, delusion, quote mine or simple untruth and hold it up as
proof of the failure of science, at the same time simply ignoring any
factual evidence I may cite.

An american journalist recently summed it all up very succinctly. One
does not sit around listening to the village idiot, the world moves on
past him.

We all have better things to do than to debate junk science with
village idiots.



From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 28, 9:15 pm, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
> > Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
> > made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
> > vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?
>
>  Oh I don't think so
>
> 1) I doubt I could do a better job of demolishing the credibility of
> the website than the internet community has already done - hence why
> scopies law came into being. See the interent community is a bit like
> science its self regulating - the charlatons soon get called out - as
> has happened to the other steaming piles of ordure answers in genesis
> and the discovery institute, where rational people have taken the time
> and trouble to debunk the lies and distortions. All that happens is
> they shift the goalposts and use another fantastic approach - as you
> do I believe we are on to aluminium in vaccines now as the 'deadly
> neurotoxin ? This is not about evidence its about propaganda for an
> insane ideological world view.
>
> 2) If I was ever foolish enough to waste the time and effort to do so
> it wouldn't make any difference would it. The very fact that you are
> even defending the website as a credible source tells me that it would
> be a pointless exercise. You would simply come back with some other
> distortion, delusion, quote mine or simple untruth and hold it up as
> proof of the failure of science, at the same time simply ignoring any
> factual evidence I may cite.
>
> An american journalist recently summed it all up very succinctly. One
> does not sit around listening to the village idiot, the world moves on
> past him.
>
> We all have better things to do than to debate junk science with
> village idiots.

This is an excellent analysis of Petey's tactics and demonstrates
precisely why debating him with studies and citations is pointless. To
do so, only gives him a platform for his pseudo-science.