From: Lefty on
Mark Probert wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:44 pm, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly. However, to hate filled Donna, it is either or.
>>> She prefers dead kids.-
>> How am I hate filled?
>
> You hate doctors, scientists, Paul Offit, vaccine developers, vaccine
> manufacturers, etc. It is clear from your writings.
>
>> Why are you getting so nasty with me?
>
> I presume you saw my email addressing the same issue.
>
> When you lie with pigs, you get dirty.
>
>
>
Thanks for the info. Now most people will know that to debate with
you, they will get dirty. So logically, to stay clean, do not lie with Mark.
From: Kevysmom on
On Feb 12, 8:56 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:52 am, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Kevysmom wrote:
> > >> Exactly. However, to hate filled Donna, it is either or.
>
> > >> She prefers dead kids.-
>
> > > How am I hate filled? Why are you getting so nasty with me?
>
> >   Because he is behind a computer screen.
>
> You do not have a clue as to the history. When you do, I will take you
> seriously. Until then, you are nothing more than the typical pro-
> infectious disease anti-vaccination merchant of disability and death.




We have a history of hating each other? I didnt know this.
From: Kevysmom on

> > > Exactly. However, to hate filled Donna, it is either or.
>
> > > She prefers dead kids.-
>
> > How am I hate filled?
>
> You hate doctors, scientists, Paul Offit, vaccine developers, vaccine
> manufacturers, etc. It is clear from your writings.



No, I dont hate doctors, or scientist. I respect some scientist more
than Mother Teresa and she is my idol!



>
> > Why are you getting so nasty with me?
>
> I presume you saw my email addressing the same issue.
>
> When you lie with pigs, you get dirty.


So, if I agree with anyone on the issues, Im automatically dirty?

From: Lefty on
Kevysmom wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:56 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 7:52 am, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevysmom wrote:
>>>>> Exactly. However, to hate filled Donna, it is either or.
>>>>> She prefers dead kids.-
>>>> How am I hate filled? Why are you getting so nasty with me?
>>> Because he is behind a computer screen.
>> You do not have a clue as to the history. When you do, I will take you
>> seriously. Until then, you are nothing more than the typical pro-
>> infectious disease anti-vaccination merchant of disability and death.
>
>
>
>
> We have a history of hating each other? I didnt know this.
Mark, it is not hard to read your postings that are archived.
Therefore the "history" is easy to know. Yours does not speak well of you.
From: PeterB - Original on
On Feb 11, 8:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:19 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 6:44 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 5:55 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that he was developing a "transfer factor" that would
> > > > > > > > > substitute for the measles vaccine. His market, thus his income, would
> > > > > > > > > be greatly enhanced if there was widespread distrust of the MMR
> > > > > > > > > vaccine, which is clearly his intent.
>
> > > > > > > > You keep repeating this, Yet, I haven't seen any proof of such a claim.
>
> > > > > > > I posted it elsewhere and how he admitted to it in the GMC
> > > > > > > proceedings.
>
> > > > > > If you were to tell the truth, would you go "pop" with a poof of
> > > > > > smoke, or just morph into a pile of locusts?
>
> > > > > Listen, stupid, I posted a quote from the GMC report where Wakefield
> > > > > admitted ...
>
> > > > One may "admit" to activities that are illegal, but there was nothing
> > > > illegal about it.
>
> > > Dipwad, I never claimed there was anything illegal about it.
>
> > Yet you use words like "admit" to imply wrongdoing.  Typical pharmnut
> > behavior.
>
> Only in your idiotsyncratic use of the English language.
>
> > > Now, if you admit that you are the twin brother of strawman and love
> > > eating red herring, we would be getting somewhere, and you would be
> > > getting closer to a cure.
>
> > The only "straw" here is between your ears.
>
> Nope, dope. Strawman and red herring are you highest skills.
>
> > > > > he was developing a measles transfer factor which would
> > > > > substitute for a vaccine. Even you are not so stupid as to believe
> > > > > that if he damaged the market for MMR, that his potion would be a
> > > > > better seller, and thus make him more money.
>
> > > > If you mean it's a shame that MMR continues to be used despite the
> > > > lack of evidence for its safety, regardless of Wakefield's research,
> > > > I agree.
>
> > > There is plenty of evidence for its safety. The fact that you do not
> > > know it, does not mean it does not exist.
>
> > What you refer to as "plenty of evidence" doesn't qualify.  Put up, or
> > shut up.
>
> Stuff it. The fact is that you are too lazy to look it up for yourself.

There is no "it," idiot. Vaccine safety remains unproven.

> > > In fact, if your "knew" it, you would weasal around that.
>
> > I believe you earned the title "Weasel Extraordinaire" when you were
> > caught denying your support of another for making false claims
> > regarding measles infection and death rates.  You had chimed that I
> > would have no response in rebuttal.  When I immediately produced
> > published science proving you both wrong, you lied that you had said
> > anything at all, only admitting to it later when I wouldn't let it
> > go.   Remember?
>
> Revisionism

Tell you sponsors I said hello.

> > > You will
> > > NEVER admit a vaccine is safe and effective, even if a ton of evidence
> > > is produced.
>
> > What makes you "think" I would not weigh the evidence should it be
> > presented?  
>
> Your past behavior.

You are perverse. I've never made one claim in these newsgroups that
I haven't cited with published science, unlike you, who has never done
so.

> There is no reason for anyone to believe that you
> 1) are capable of weighing evidence

Using science to easily expose your lies and logical fallacies is a
reason.

> Your endless excuses for failing to provide this secret
> "evidence" you talk about is quite amusing.-
>
> Like I said, with your lack of intellectual honesty, there is no
> point.

Still no answer to the question: what has it got to do with me? You
are letting down all those readers you falsely claim you are here to
help. You are a liar and a fraud.