From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 8, 11:34 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:41 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kevysmom" <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:85dbce39-3824-47aa-a4b9-b3b86df8e8d0(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> 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 have read it and it is located in the posts of MHA, you will find it
> > there.
>
> Anything you can read and comprehend would only be useful to other
> chimps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So typical of you. What a poor excuse for ??? you are.

From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 9, 8:56 am, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:14 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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..
>
> >http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm
>
> > UK Patent Application 9711663.6
>
> >http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-os/p-find/p-find-number
>
> One of the allegations made by critics of Dr. Wakefield is that his
> motivation for opposing the MMR in the news briefing in Feb. 1998 and
> afterwards was that he had a financial stake in patent he was seeking
> at that time for an alternative vaccine which would compete with the
> MMR.  

That is true, based on the patent application posted in the link
above.

> This allegation was first made by journalist Brian Deer in Nov.
> 2004 and then picked up by Paul Offit in Autism's False Prophets in
> 2008.   Offit states that Wakefield had "other financial interests" in
> opposing the MMR and that he was a co-holder, with the Royal Free
> Hospital, of the patent.   In fact, Wakefield was not listed as one of
> the applicants in the June 6, 1997 application;

WRONG!

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_gb&FT=D&date=19981210&CC=WO&NR=9855138A1&KC=A1

That is the precise patent under discussion.

almost all the
> royalties from whatever vaccine was to be developed would inure to the
> benefit of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine. The first
> applicant named on the form, then, was the Royal Free Hospital School
> of Medicine.
>
> The co-applicant on the June 6, 1997 patent was not Dr. Andrew
> Wakefield; it was "Neuroimmune Therapeutics Research Foundation."

Under the heading "Inventors/Applicants" on the published document
(Original Document tab), Andrew Wakefield is listed.

This
> imposing-sounding foundation was really the work of one man, the South
> Carolina immunologist Hugh Fudenberg.   Wakefield wanted to include
> him on the application as a way of honoring his life-long work on
> "transfer factors," which lay at the heart of the proposed patent.
>
> http://www.drbilllong.com/Autism/WakefieldIX.html

Donna, thanks for posting something that proves that anti-vacs do and
say anything to lie about Wakefield.

From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 12, 9:07 am, 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.
>
> No, I dont hate doctors, or scientist.  I respect some scientist more
> than Mother Teresa and she is my idol!

WOW! You fooled me. I'll take a wait and see.

>
>
>
> > > 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?

I did not say that.
From: Lefty on
Mark Probert wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:04 am, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.-
>
> Cannot happen. I am Kosher.
Putz
From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 12, 5:46 pm, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 9:04 am, Lefty <Jusle...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.-
>
> > Cannot happen. I am Kosher.
>
>   Putz-

WOW! Debating skills of a turd.