From: Peter Parry on 26 Sep 2009 17:25
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:53:43 +0100, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
> Autism Linked To Swine Flu Vaccine
That isn't actually what the quoted article in the Express (not a
particularly authoritative source in its own right) said.
>The vaccine includes an additive that could be linked to autism
It didn't say that either.
Accuracy isn't your strong point is it?
>The One Click Group
Ah, this is your source. A site run by a woman of many identities
whose job, before she decided to become an "activist" was in making
dog food commercials.
From: Smarter Than You on 26 Sep 2009 19:08
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Smarter Than You wrote:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> john wrote:
>>>> Autism Linked To Swine Flu Vaccine
>>>> The vaccine includes an additive that could be linked to autism
>>> Key words: Could be.
>>> But it isn't. There have been extensive studies that thimerasol to
>>> investigate whether it is causing autism. It was found that it is not
>>> causing autism.
>>>> BRITAIN'S swine flu vaccine contains an additive dropped from
>>>> children's jabs five years ago over fears it is linked to autism. The
>>>> vaccine contains the mercury-based compound Thimerosal, which has not
>>>> been used in childhood vaccines since 2004. It was removed from jabs in
>>>> America 10 years ago after issues were raised by the US Public Health
>>>> Service. UK Government / WHO vaccines drug dealer Professor David
>>>> Salisbury defended its use in Swine Flu vaccines.
>>>> Express Reporter, Daily Express/The One Click Group
>> Wonder how many truly independant studies have been done? Key words
>> here, "truly and independant".>>
> There have been several, in the US, Canada, UK and Denmark. If you're
> interested in the exact number, try doing a search in PubMed.
> No good study
> Ah! so the "good studies" are the ones that find as you wish it to be?
> What does the bunny say?
> >has found any relationship between autism and vaccines or thimerasol. No
> plausable mechanism has been offered.
> There is no link between autism and thimerasol or vaccines.
AHHH!! THE BUNNY HAS SPOKEN! ALL BOW TO THE BUNNY!
From: Jan Drew on 26 Sep 2009 19:21
On Sep 26, 12:21ï¿½pm, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz NOT
Still lying about being a kidsdoc.
Refuses to provide proof.
Thus, nothing he posts can be believe, except from the lying *gang*.
From: Jan Drew on 26 Sep 2009 19:24
On Sep 26, 3:29ï¿½pm, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz LIAR NOT
Garbage without a shred of proof.
From: Happy Oyster on 26 Sep 2009 20:17
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 26, 12:21?pm, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz NOT
>Still lying about being a kidsdoc.
>Refuses to provide proof.
>Thus, nothing he posts can be believe, except from the lying *gang*.
Oh, well, here is something proven. Yes, proven.
Jan Drew is pure hate and lies. And stupidity beyond imagination. Now see, how
this woman, a Net stalker and harasser, even cannot count to 2:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:11:53 -0400, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>[person who is stalked by Jan Drew for years] wrote in message
>On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > Posted that Noah his son's birthday was 11/26/96 (my birthday).
>> > He has numerous posts that are [person who is stalked by Jan Drew for years]
>> > 2009- 1946 = 64 -in November. My math is not wrong.
>> > Thus, [person who is stalked by Jan Drew for years] is a liar.
>Since November 2009 is in the future, I will not be 63 until then.
>You are amazingly stupid.
>November 26th 2009 is in 2009.
>2009-1946 YOU will be 64, not 63. You are 63 now. On November 26, 2009 you
>will be 64.
>Thanks for proving you are a liar again.
>And, I am correct. You and you alone posted your birthday.
To make things a bit easier to see, this is a table of events.
A person born on 26.11. 1946 is on
26.11.1947 1 year old
26.11.1948 2 years old
26.11.1949 3 years old
26.11.1950 4 years old
26.11.1951 5 years old
26.11.1952 6 years old
26.11.1953 7 years old
26.11.1954 8 years old
26.11.1955 9 years old
26.11.1956 10 years old
26.11.1957 11 years old
26.11.1958 12 years old
26.11.1959 13 years old
26.11.1960 14 years old
26.11.1961 15 years old
26.11.1962 16 years old
26.11.1963 17 years old
26.11.1964 18 years old
26.11.1965 19 years old
26.11.1966 20 years old
26.11.1967 21 years old
26.11.1968 22 years old
26.11.1969 23 years old
26.11.1970 24 years old
26.11.1971 25 years old
26.11.1972 26 years old
26.11.1973 27 years old
26.11.1974 28 years old
26.11.1975 29 years old
26.11.1976 30 years old
26.11.1977 31 years old
26.11.1978 32 years old
26.11.1979 33 years old
26.11.1980 34 years old
26.11.1981 35 years old
26.11.1982 36 years old
26.11.1983 37 years old
26.11.1984 38 years old
26.11.1985 39 years old
26.11.1986 40 years old
26.11.1987 41 years old
26.11.1988 42 years old
26.11.1989 43 years old
26.11.1990 44 years old
26.11.1991 45 years old
26.11.1992 46 years old
26.11.1993 47 years old
26.11.1994 48 years old
26.11.1995 49 years old
26.11.1996 50 years old
26.11.1997 51 years old
26.11.1998 52 years old
26.11.1999 53 years old
26.11.2000 54 years old
26.11.2001 55 years old
26.11.2002 56 years old
26.11.2003 57 years old
26.11.2004 58 years old
26.11.2005 59 years old
26.11.2006 60 years old
26.11.2007 61 years old
26.11.2008 62 years old
26.11.2009 63 years old
26.11.2010 64 years old
On the 26.11. 2009 that person WILL BECOME 63 years old!
But, see above, Jan Drew still insists:
>2009-1946 = 63. On oivember 26 of this year he will be 64.
Now, a person born on 26.11. 1946 is on the very day "26.11.1946" BORN.
1 year later it will be 1 year old:
26.11.1947 1 year old
According to my timeline at 26.11.2009 it will be 63 years old.
But Jan Drew insists on
On oivember 26 of this year he will be 64.
Will Jan Drew be able to point where in my timeline there is an error?
Will Jan Drew be able to explain it?
Or will she, as usual, bring nothing but more lies, insults, forgeries, or other
The answer is: Jan Drew still insists on her ***OBVIOUS*** false claim. So Jan
Drew is obviously not able to count to 2.
Would you try to discuss with a person who cannot even count to 2?
TINA LIVE ! TINA LIVE ! TINA LIVE ! TINA LIVE ! TINA LIVE ! TINA LIVE !