From: john on

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >
> Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA
> does such extensive studies.
>
> jeff

No he wasn't http://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html

"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers
of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them,
anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer
at the FDA)


From: john on

"Peter Moran" <pmoran(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:007aa71f$0$26937
>

> We who also have medical training have an intimate aquaintance with the
> history of vaccine development. So we can analyse propaganda like this
> post and tell you what is wrong with it --- three things.
> 1. Smallpox vaccine did have significant risks. It was more dangerous
> than any modern vaccine, but it was still still less lethal and damaging
> than smallpox epidemics. For many years all travellers had to undergo it.

Absolute bollocks. Smallpox vaccine killed millions over 200 years
http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html

> 2. Vaccinia was a live vaccine so that it probably was quite often
> ineffective in the days before widespread refrigeration
> 3. No data is provided about any other vaccine to show that the risks
> outweigh the benefits.

Absolute bollocks, see smallpox vaccine above. As for MMR, see
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html



From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> >>> and are depressed.
> >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> >> articles.
>
> > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > to prove such safety.
>
> Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
>
> >  As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > responsibility to produce that data.
>
> Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> your claims.
>
> >  Unfortunately, you can't,
> > because it doesn't exist.   BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
>
> Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
> vaccine reports"? It never did. VAERS was made to address a particular
> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring.

So that they may be followed up to ensure that it is not a statistical
fluke. The perfect example was the origianl RotaShield vaccination
that was picked up as causing intussusception, was investigated and
this lead to the withdrawal of the vaccine.

I am not aware of any system in the realm of alternatives that can do
this.

It
> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> > You might want to talk
> > to your sponsors about that.
>
> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.

Pontificating Blowhard NEEDS you to have sponsors.

From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 3, 9:18 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > >> john wrote:
> > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > >>> and are depressed.
> > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> > >> articles.
>
> > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > > to prove such safety.
>
> > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
>
> That must explain why you didn't post any.
>
> > >  As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > > responsibility to produce that data.
>
> > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> > your claims.
>
> Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who
> advocate the policy of intervention.  Only an irrational pharmnut
> would claim otherwise.   Are you an irrational pharmnut?
>
> > >  Unfortunately, you can't,
> > > because it doesn't exist.   BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
>
> > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
> > vaccine reports"? It never did.
>
> I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the
> importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports.  It's there, look
> it up.
>
> > VAERS was made to address a particular
> > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> vaccine prior to use.  But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> developed for those yet to be affected.
>
> > > You might want to talk
> > > to your sponsors about that.
>
> > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
>
> You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-

Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies,
etc. as I have opten pointed out.

From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 3, 10:09 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > >> john wrote:
> > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > >>> and are depressed.
> > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> > >> articles.
>
> > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > > to prove such safety.
>
> > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
>
> > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > > responsibility to produce that data.
> > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> > your claims
>
> And yours and yours alone to take responsibility to prove you are a
> dr.

Ilena did that so well, and no one can improve on that.

And, BIGOT, I will comment when I feel like it.

> You have failed to do so.  That makes you a hypocrite, Jeffrey, Peter,
> Joseph Utz.-

Wrong. The fact that you, keeper of archives and master GoogleGroup
searcher, have been told that you are wrong.

That just makes you uneducable. And StOOOOOpid.