From: Peter B. on
"Donna" <kevysmom10(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f169c63-992d-468d-a357-c950ba1ef709(a)24g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 7:48 pm, "Peter B." <.@.> wrote:
> "Donna" <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9508d71e-79ea-444a-886b-a11e98b4e058(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 10:56 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <5d3aede3-1dd6-4d2e-8147-3d6abd17a...(a)o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Mark
> > > Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On May 2, 8:41=A0am, Donna <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On May 1, 11:17=A0pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On May 1, 2:56=A0pm, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> And wouldn't supporting vaccines and the drug industry, as in
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>> =
> > >> case,
> > >>>>>> be supporting a conservative bias, not a liberal one?
> > >>>>>> Jeff
> > >>>>> WHY didnt PBS show films of vaccine injured babies in the PICU
> > >>>>> fighting for life? They didnt show one vaccine injured baby, WHY?
> > >>>> Good question....hmmm./.I KNOW!
> > >>>> Vaccine injured babies do not exist.
> > >>> MARK!!!!!!!! That is the lamest and cruelest thing Ive ever seen you
> > >>> write. Yes, its cruel you knowing very well that vaccines do injury
> > >>> babies and actually cause death in babies, so AGAIN why didnt PBS
> > >>> show
> > >>> the infants in PICU suffering, yet they showed a baby with measles?
> > >> I would have preferred an hour long show of the consequences of not
> > >> vaccinating. A nice tour of an iron lung ward, rehab centers where 15
> > >> year old children babble because of meningitis destroying their
> > >> brains, children wearing hearing aids, blue babies trying to breath
> > >> inspite of their diptheria, and things like that.
>
> > >>> Thats not being fair and balanced in journalism.
> > >> There are issues that are subject to fair and balanced. Those
> > >> subjects
> > >> have two valid sides. In the issue of vaccination, there is only one
> > >> valid side.
>
> > >> Its using FEAR to get
> > >>> young parents to keep BLINDLY vaccinating their newborn babies with
> > >>> toxins
> > >> You whine about fear? Both sides use fear. The difference is that the
> > >> fear of these diseases is valid. The "fear" of vaccines is bullshit.
>
> > > The reality is that millions of people do fear vaccines. Have you ever
> > > seen any children that had autism? Believe it or not, most parents
> > > FEAR
> > > that their children will develop autism if their children get dozens
> > > of
> > > shots that contain mercury.
>
> > Vaccines don't have mercury.
>
> False!!
>
>
>
> > > As you probably know, mercury is a known
> > > poison. There are known effects of mercury poisoning. I once saw a
> > > list
> > > of
> > > the known effects of mercury poisoning and compared it with a list of
> > > the
> > > symptoms of children that have autism and many of the things on both
> > > lists
> > > were similar.
>
> > Only superficially. When you look more closely at the symptoms of the
> > two, they are not that similar. Autism causes specific changes in the
> > brain. Mercury causes *different* changes in the brain.
>
> This is true, known cases of mercury poisoning cause microcephaly not
> macrocephaly, BUT, how do we know its not possible that mercury can
> have this effect on a babies brain development? Do you have scientific
> studies proving mercury doesnt cause macrocephaly? Does smoking only
> cause lung cancer?
> ==================================================
> That argument is as facitious as the argument for global warming.




I watched a documentary last night from Netflix about coral reefs.
When the water warms up, it kills the reefs, without the reefs we
destroy the beginning of the natural food chain. Everyone including GW
Bush knows Global Warming is for REAL, the argument is over how much
man is contributing to global warming.
====================================================
That the earth warms and cools dependant on the solar cycles and volcanic
ash is of little doubt by any rational human. That mankind is big enough to
do such damage globally is a joke.

When I see such logic put forth I think about the realities like lightening
striking our forests in Yellowstone and the subsequent fires that destroyed
most all surrounding forests. All burnt for naught, adding an large amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere. SAVE OUR TREE"S!!! yeah right, for what? Oh the
irony

Tree's are a renewable resource, should be treated as any valueable crop
like corn, etc.


From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On May 4, 12:33 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 6:27 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jan Drew wrote:
>
> > <...>
>
> > > Blatant liar.
>
> > > Results 1 - 10 of about 2,690,000 for The number of alternative and
> > > holistic schools in the US. (0.24 seconds
>
> > So what? All that proves is that there are a lot of web sites that
> > whatever search engine you used are found related to this topic.
>
> > > The proper name is alternative and complimentary medicine.
> > > You would do well to look all them up. But, you probablhy won't
> > > because you believe the lies of Organizaed medicine
>
> > No, I don't. I make my own decisions based on the evidence. If they
> > agree with conventional medicine, it is because conventional medicine
> > got it right.
>
> > The name you use, "alternative and complimentary medicine," is used
> > because alternative means alternative to proven methods and
> > complimentary means that it offers compliments, like, "You look so
> > pretty, today." Actually, you probably meant "complementary," which
> > means something that completes something else, as in complementary
> > medicine is to be used in conjunction with proven medicine.
>
> > For this reason, alternative and complementary medicine is really
> > conjecture-based medicine (aka, con-med). It is unproven. And in the
> > vast majority of cases, alternative medicine has neither a basis in
> > science to explain why it works nor good evidence that shows it does work.
>
> > Being "alternative" doesn't mean effective. In fact, if it were proven
> > to be effective, it would become part of conventional medicine.
>
> > quackwatch.org has a lot of good, accurate info on con-med.
>
> > Jeff
>
> LOL.  QuackQuack.
>
PatrickBolen bilge deleted.

>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On May 4, 12:40 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 9:59 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 11:19 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 11:17 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:56 pm, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > And wouldn't supporting vaccines and the drug industry, as in this case,
> > > > > > be supporting a conservative bias, not a liberal one?
>
> > > > > > Jeff
>
> > > > > WHY didnt PBS show films of vaccine injured babies in the PICU
> > > > > fighting for life? They didnt show one vaccine injured baby, WHY?
>
> > > > Good question....hmmm./.I KNOW!
>
> > > > Vaccine injured babies do not exist.
>
> > > > > Are they scared parents would rather their child have the damn measles
> > > > > than take a risk of having a dead or severely disabled child from
> > > > > injecting toxins into their baby?
>
> > > > > Interesting
>
> > > > >http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/
>
> > > > > PBS show Religion and Ethics is funded by Eli Lilly makers of
> > > > > thimerosal
>
> > > > > Funding
> > > > > Funding for RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY is provided by Lilly
> > > > > Endowment Inc. with additional support from the Corporation for Public
> > > > > Broadcasting and Mutual of America Life Insurance Company.
> > > > > The Indianapolis-based Lilly Endowment Inc. was founded in 1937 by
> > > > > three members of the Lilly family through gifts of stock in their
> > > > > pharmaceutical business, Eli Lilly and Company. The Endowment is a
> > > > > separate entity from the company, with a distinct governing board,
> > > > > staff and location, and is devoted to the causes of religion,
> > > > > education and community development.
>
> > > > Do you know the meaning of distinct?
>
> > > > I am on the board of an endowment, and we are totally independent of
> > > > everything.
>
> > > Now, there is a claim for you to prove.
>
> > Up your DREWhole. For me to prove that would encourage more of your
> > stalking. Go DREW yourself.
>
> > You have forgotten what you
>
> > > posted:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/b47238df1....
>
> > > ****Anecdotes are not facts. They are, at best interesting stories.
> > > At
> > > worst, outright lies.****

You have taken that out of context (a form of lying). Anecdotes do not
prove scientific issues. Period.

I have told you this
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.3
times and you have not learned it.

As for me proving anything, especially to a DREWbag like yourself, go
shove it up your DREWhole.



From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On May 4, 6:17 am, Donna <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 7:45 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Donna wrote:
> > > On May 2, 10:56 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > >> Jason wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <5d3aede3-1dd6-4d2e-8147-3d6abd17a...(a)o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark
> > >>> Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On May 2, 8:41=A0am, Donna <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On May 1, 11:17=A0pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On May 1, 2:56=A0pm, Kevysmom <kevysmo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> And wouldn't supporting vaccines and the drug industry, as in this =
> > >>>> case,
> > >>>>>>>> be supporting a conservative bias, not a liberal one?
> > >>>>>>>> Jeff
> > >>>>>>> WHY didnt PBS show films of vaccine injured babies in the PICU
> > >>>>>>> fighting for life? They didnt show one vaccine injured baby, WHY?
> > >>>>>> Good question....hmmm./.I KNOW!
> > >>>>>> Vaccine injured babies do not exist.
> > >>>>> MARK!!!!!!!! That is the lamest and cruelest thing Ive ever seen you
> > >>>>> write. Yes, its cruel you knowing very well that vaccines do injury
> > >>>>> babies and actually cause death in babies, so AGAIN why didnt PBS show
> > >>>>> the infants in PICU suffering, yet they showed a baby with measles?
> > >>>> I would have preferred an hour long show of the consequences of not
> > >>>> vaccinating. A nice tour of an iron lung ward, rehab centers where 15
> > >>>> year old children babble because of meningitis destroying their
> > >>>> brains, children wearing hearing aids, blue babies trying to breath
> > >>>> inspite of their diptheria, and things like that.
> > >>>>> Thats not being fair and balanced in journalism.
> > >>>> There are issues that are subject to fair and balanced. Those subjects
> > >>>> have two valid sides. In the issue of vaccination, there is only one
> > >>>> valid side.
> > >>>> Its using FEAR to get
> > >>>>> young parents to keep BLINDLY vaccinating their newborn babies with
> > >>>>> toxins
> > >>>> You whine about fear? Both sides use fear. The difference is that the
> > >>>> fear of these diseases is valid. The "fear" of vaccines is bullshit.
> > >>> The reality is that millions of people do fear vaccines. Have you ever
> > >>> seen any children that had autism? Believe it or not, most parents FEAR
> > >>> that their children will develop autism if their children get dozens of
> > >>> shots that contain mercury.
> > >> Vaccines don't have mercury.
>
> > > False!!
>
> > >>> As you probably know, mercury is a known
> > >>> poison. There are known effects of mercury poisoning. I once saw a list of
> > >>> the known effects of mercury poisoning and compared it with a list of the
> > >>> symptoms of children that have autism and many of the things on both lists
> > >>> were similar.
> > >> Only superficially. When you look more closely at the symptoms of the
> > >> two, they are not that similar. Autism causes specific changes in the
> > >> brain. Mercury causes *different* changes in the brain.
>
> > > This is true, known cases of mercury poisoning cause microcephaly not
> > > macrocephaly, BUT, how do we know its not possible that mercury can
> > > have this effect on a babies brain development? Do you have scientific
> > > studies proving mercury doesnt cause macrocephaly?  Does smoking only
> > > cause lung cancer?
>
> > Below, you say you did lots of research. You tell us.
>
> > >>> If you seen that evidence, you would probably say that it
> > >>> was just a coincidence that the two lists were similar. However, millions
> > >>> of people now believe that it is not a coincidence that the lists are
> > >>> similar or in some cases identical.
> > >> Believe is the key word. Fact is that autism is *not* caused by mercury
> > >> or vaccines.
>
> > >> Jeff
>
> > > I think Autism is caused by mercury, from observation and from tons of
> > > research. Sure, its not as severe as congenital mercury poisoning,
> > > But, I feel children with Autism are the way they are because of heavy
> > > metals causing damage to a childs brain.
>
> > Your research isn't very good then. After mercury was removed from
> > vaccines, autism rates didn't go down. Nor do epidemiological studies
> > support your conjecture.
>
> According to the EPA 1 out of 6 women of child bearing age has enough
> mercury in her body to cause harm to her fetus. Vaccines are NOT the
> only source of mercury
>
> Now, is this just a coincidence that according to the EPA 1 out of 6
> women of child bearing age has enough mercury in her body to cause
> harm to her fetus, and according to the CDC 1 out of 6 children have a
> developmental problem..... Mercury is a NEUROTOXIN, it does more
> damage than lead, now if 1 out of 6 women of child bearing age had
> enough lead in their bodies to cause harm to her fetus, would you than
> be alarmed?

The operative word is *IF*. Recently, a study by the EPA was entirely
misquoted and misused by anti-vaccinationist.

Provide the actual study.

From: Jan Drew on
On May 4, 10:53�am, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 12:33�am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 6:27 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Jan Drew wrote:
>
> > > <...>
>
> > > > Blatant liar.
>
> > > > Results 1 - 10 of about 2,690,000 for The number of alternative and
> > > > holistic schools in the US. (0.24 seconds
>
> > > So what? All that proves is that there are a lot of web sites that
> > > whatever search engine you used are found related to this topic.
>
> > > > The proper name is alternative and complimentary medicine.
> > > > You would do well to look all them up. But, you probablhy won't
> > > > because you believe the lies of Organizaed medicine
>
> > > No, I don't. I make my own decisions based on the evidence. If they
> > > agree with conventional medicine, it is because conventional medicine
> > > got it right.
>
> > > The name you use, "alternative and complimentary medicine," is used
> > > because alternative means alternative to proven methods and
> > > complimentary means that it offers compliments, like, "You look so
> > > pretty, today." Actually, you probably meant "complementary," which
> > > means something that completes something else, as in complementary
> > > medicine is to be used in conjunction with proven medicine.
>
> > > For this reason, alternative and complementary medicine is really
> > > conjecture-based medicine (aka, con-med). It is unproven. And in the
> > > vast majority of cases, alternative medicine has neither a basis in
> > > science to explain why it works nor good evidence that shows it does work.
>
> > > Being "alternative" doesn't mean effective. In fact, if it were proven
> > > to be effective, it would become part of conventional medicine.
>
> > > quackwatch.org has a lot of good, accurate info on con-med.
>
> > > Jeff
>
> > LOL. �QuackQuack.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: A grade of D
Next: Jeff Utz is not a doctor