From: Jan Drew on 13 Feb 2010 02:46
On Feb 11, 8:26ï¿½pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:19ï¿½pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 6:44ï¿½pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 10, 5:55ï¿½pm, 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. ï¿½Typical 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. ï¿½Put up, or
> > shut up.
> Stuff it. The fact is that you are too lazy to look it up for
Temper, temper. Either put up, or shut up.
Do post the proof.
> > > In fact, if your "knew" it, you would weasal around that.
You are weaseling by now posting the proof.
> > 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. ï¿½You had chimed that I
> > would have no response in rebuttal. ï¿½When 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. ï¿½ Remember?
> > > 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? ï¿½
Because it has been presented.
> Your past behavior. There is no reason for anyone to believe that you
> 1) are capable of weighing evidence
> 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
Another excuse because Mark has no proof.
And--needs to get a new line.
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800 for Mark Probert lack of intellectual
honesty. (0.31 seconds)
Open mouth, insert both feet.
From: Jan Drew on 13 Feb 2010 02:57
On Feb 11, 8:30ï¿½pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:18ï¿½pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 4:42 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 11, 4:25 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > >>>> Kevysmom wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> You mean the man who developed the RotaTEQ vaccine that has saved tens
> > >>>>>>>> of thousands of children's lives and has prevented even more
> > >>>>>>>> hospitalizations? Of course he should be well compensated for that.
> > >>>>>>>> As for making more money from the vaccine....not possible.-
> > >>>>>>> How has the Rota TEQ vaccine saved tens of thousands of lives?
> > >>>>>> Because diarrhea is one of the leading causes of infant death around
> > >>>>>> the world. The last I heard there were 55,000 hospital admissions a
> > >>>>>> year in the US as a result of rotavirus infection.
> > >>>>> I dont believe those numbers, and I certainly dont believe very many
> > >>>>> infants die from diarrhea in the US.(Dehydration is curable with a
> > >>>>> simple thing called an IV) Maybe in third world countries where they
> > >>>>> drink very contaminated polluted water.
> > >>>> Please engage your brain. He didn't write that 55,000 kids a year die in
> > >>>> the US from dehydration. Rather, 55,000 kids are admitted to the
> > >>>> hospital. Around 50 kids are killed each year from rotavirus.
> > >>>> According to the World Health Organization, about 1.5 million kids die
> > >>>> each year from diarrhea.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/index.html
> > >>>> How sad.
> > >>> But not for lack of vaccine, despite your repeated use of such logical
> > >>> fallacies.-
> > >> They die from a vaccine preventable disease, Rotavirus.
> > > The term, "vaccine preventable disease" makes the implicit but
> > > unproven claim that vaccines prevent disease. ï¿½Try backing up your
> > > claims with something other than hot air.
> > Yes, the claim is implicit. It is also proven:http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5841a2.htm?s_cid=mm5841a2_...
> > Yes, the effectiveness of the Rotavirus vaccine has been proven. PERIOD..
> Peter is too lazy to click. Here is the abstract:
> Volume 354:11-22 ï¿½January 5, 2006 ï¿½Number 1
CDC. Organized medicine liars with vested interest. Follow the
Jabs our kids wheile they are babies.
From: Jan Drew on 13 Feb 2010 03:13
On Feb 12, 8:55ï¿½am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:28ï¿½am, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > you cant debate the issues, so you attack the messenger, You lose.-
> That would also apply to Jan Drew, right?
> [ ï¿½ ï¿½ ] ï¿½Yes
> [ ï¿½ ï¿½ ] ï¿½No
The disbarred lawyer must think he is is court.
Noone has to answer by a yes,or no.
From: Jan Drew on 13 Feb 2010 03:14
On Feb 12, 8:56ï¿½am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:52ï¿½am, 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?
> > ï¿½ 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.
1 - 10 of about 22,000 for Mark Probert infectious disease anti-
vaccination merchant of disability and death.. (0.28 seconds
From: Jan Drew on 13 Feb 2010 03:26
On Feb 12, 12:35ï¿½pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:07:27 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> 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. ï¿½I respect some scientist more
> >than Mother Teresa and she is my idol!
> Then you are not very smart. Mother Teresa didn't help and in the end
> was nothing than front for a money scam. Millions of dollars were
> collected under her name and mission, the mighty church spent it
> Fraud is fraud.
> The mighty church is not even accountable as any other charity should
> be. Do not say there are accountable to god, because I see no
> evidence of one ever having existed.
> She would have been better off passing out condoms and encouraging
> people not to make more babies.
> >> > 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.
> Are You thinking of John the Pig Farmer.
> >So, if I agree with anyone on the issues, Im automatically dirty?
> When you react from fear and not thought.
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:35
Is that fear or thought????
> Bob Officer