From: Mark Probert on 12 Feb 2010 11:27
On Feb 12, 9:58 am, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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..- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Post your full name, address, phone number, etc. so we can be on an
If not, why not?
From: Mark Probert on 12 Feb 2010 11:33
On Feb 12, 10:20 am, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> Still no answer to the question: what has it got to do with me?
I pointed out that you are intellecutally dishonest, and that has been
well documented. You use tactics such as logical fallacies (e.g. your
poisoning the well "warning post") idiotsyncratic word meanings, and
torturing of semantics. You were shown that when you cherry picked a
quote from Beaglehole you used it to change the entire meaning of what
was written. You went away for a few days, and came right back and did
the same thing all over again.
You are a living "Ground Hog Day", the movie.
> are letting down all those readers you falsely claim you are here to
If my comments regarding your tactics and antics do not make anyone
think about what you say, then my posting anything to refute you is
pointless, as that reader chooses not to inquire further.
> You are a liar and a fraud.-
You are totally self-referential.
Why not just be honest and admit that you will never, ever, accept
that vaccines are safe and effective, no matter what evidence is
provided? At least you will no longer be playing in a charade.
From: Mark Probert on 12 Feb 2010 11:36
On Feb 12, 10:39 am, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
No wonder vaccines have a history of killing
> tens of thousands and damaging untold millions.
Show some proof of that claim. Remember, *killing TENS OF THOUSANDS*
and damaging untold millions*.
PROVIDE ONLY VERIFIABLE CREDIBLE SOURCES(1), and try real hard not to
use your usual weaseling.
Cue Petey to avoid this.
(1) (Whale.to and other loon and anti-vac cites do not count).
From: Mark Probert on 12 Feb 2010 11:38
On Feb 7, 9:19 pm, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.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 when I posted the exerpt from the GMC hearing report.
From: Mark Probert on 12 Feb 2010 11:40
On Feb 8, 4:18 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 18:19:37 -0800 (PST), Kevysmom
> > <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>You keep repeating this, Yet, I haven't seen any proof of such a claim.
> > UK Patent Application 9711663.6
> Brian Deerhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/selective_hearing.html
So what? Even if you were right, and I would die laughing, that does
not mitigate the fact that Wakefield applied for a patent for a
competing product whose sales would be improved if he undermined
confidence, as he did, in the MMR.