From: Steven Bornfeld on
Mark Probert-Drew wrote:
> On Mar 27, 10:04 am, Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm...(a)>
> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> Great link. Solid real evidence. Unfortunately, the anti-vaxxers were
>>> vaccinated against getting a clue, and it has been 100% effective.
>>> Been to the Cyclones?
>> Couple of times, not nearly enough.
>> Steve
> Same here. I am glad that CI is going to be kept as a playground. The
> Cyclones and a rejuvenated CI is a winner.


From: john on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)> wrote in message
> Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)> wrote:
>>Homeopathy & Measles quotes
> Thanks for that, Jan. I publish a "Batshit crazy anti-vax Quote of the
> Day" on Twitter and Facebook, and that article has given me several
> days' material.

Stick it next to your 20 lies

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <jPmdnTIVEu9LPDfWnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)>, john wrote:

> Figures one (1) through eleven (11) graphically illustrate that in North
> America, Europe, and the South Pacific , major declines in life-threatening
> infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far in advance
> of public immunization efforts for specific diseases as listed. This
> provides irrefutable evidence that vaccines are not necessary for the
> effective elimination of a wide range of infectious diseases
> Figures eleven (12) through twenty-four (24) graphically illustrate
> that immunization is not by any means a proven and foolproof measure for
> protection from various infectious disease conditions. It is often
> inconsequential epidemiologically, and in some cases it is shown to actually
> worsen health-care outcomes.

I love it when people flagrantly doctor the data to make up graphs.
This is one of the best, since it cherry-picks a small number of
dates to pull highs and lows of a varying list and then draws a straight
line from long before measles vaccination to long after to pretend that
there was a steady decline.

Lovely example:

Now, isn't that an impressive decline from before vaccination?
Only one problem -- a whole bunch of dates are deleted between
1935 and 1947 and between 1947 and 1959. Careful selection can
be sooo useful, no?

Here's the original graph:

Now, isn't it curious that someone would go to this much trouble
to lie about a subject?

| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)> -+
From: john on

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)> wrote in message
> Now, isn't it curious that someone would go to this much trouble
> to lie about a subject?

you lot invented the graph lie