From: Mike on
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Mar 21, 10:59 pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...(a)ariplex.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wait wait !!!!! How STUPID I've been!!!
>
> The light dawns!!!
>
> In order to communicate with Oystermensch, it is necessary to put
> things in terms he can understand!
>
> No wonder the poor chap did not understand Homeopathy!!!
>
> OK, here goes (historic moment everyone cuz for the first time
> communication will be established
> with the full Oyster entity in what is, I hope, full and competent
> Oysterese!!!)
>
> The kopf-schmerz in the dumkopfen head shrink shranken bei der
> mixed up-en und conspiracy-laden (NOT bin Laden nein nein!!!!!)
> Theorien is der principale cause (Ursache) fur die dementia der Oyste
> wan!
>
> Dissen-hissen phainomoe-none is die directe-taten resultaten of der
> instantiation of der
> Junkian archetypen direketen into den Kopf der Oysty !
>
> Also, resulten direckte die mosten crazien posten onto den Usenet!!!
>
> Having made the diagnostication of das Probelm die Loesung-solution
> ist einfach und direkt! Homeopathy ist die Antwort!!!!!!
>
> Citizoom Jimattack
>
>
>

Das bin gut, du machten mein Tag!
From: Mike on
Bob Officer wrote:
> Did you know when asperger's was included in the autism spectrum
> disorder, the number of people with autism doubled in less than a
> year. IT doesn't mean it actually doubled the number of people with
> autism disorder, it just counted them.

Evidence please.

>> By the way, one researcher very carefully suggests a possible
>> existence of such a mechanism.
>> http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infecti.php
>
> What do you know that blog agrees with me. or did you read the 1st
> paragraph? Did you understand it? Do you know the history of the
> Autism since it was 1st described by Kenner? Do you know the year
> Asperger's was added to the condition we know call Autism?
>
> Now did you pay any attention to this paragraph:
>
> <cite>
> "This statement was made months before the Lancet retracted the
> infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's paper, linking
> autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper was retracted
> after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British regulators
> leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and was paid by
> the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have been
> several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying that
> MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4)."
> <cite>
>
> If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.

Dr.Mikovit's study is independent of Wakefield's. If it has similar
results (and I am not stating it has) then it would confirm Wakefield's
results, not other way around.

>
> While I do agree XMRV is an avenue of exploration. and thank you for
> the blog link.
>
> It doesn't change what I said as far as being 100% accurate.
>
>
From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 22, 10:31 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 11:18 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> Bob Officer wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:51:07 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> >>> <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ms. WRONG has a serious reading comprehension problem. This yarn is
> >>>>>>>>> taken from a Readers Digest article by Arthur Allen, who is certainly
> >>>>>>>>> diametrically the opposite of Mr. Allen on the issue of vaccines. Mr.
> >>>>>>>>> Allen quotes:
> >>>>>>>>> "We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give
> >>>>>>>>> the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what
> >>>>>>>>> science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines."
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.rd.com/health-slideshows/h1n1-the-report-card/article17474...
> >>>>>>>>> These is NO call for censorship or anything else Katie WRONG whines
> >>>>>>>>> about. Madame Secretary is correctly pointing out that the views of
> >>>>>>>>> the anti-vaxxers arenot supported by sceince or facts. Thus, they
> >>>>>>>>> should not be given equal weight.
> >>>>>>>> No Sir, this IS censorship when it comes from the government.
> >>>>>>>> Saying "they should not be given equal weight" is one thing,
> >>>>>>>> saying the same thing from a position of a Cabinet Secretary is quite
> >>>>>>>> different. Reaching out to the media and asking them for preferential
> >>>>>>>> treatment for yourself and limiting opposing views IS censorship..
> >>>>>>>> Even if you believe that you are censoring the bad guys (and even if
> >>>>>>>> they were bad guys) it is censorship.
> >>>>>>>>> I see nothing wrong with that. It is akin to having to give equal
> >>>>>>>>> weight to flat-earthers, moon-landing hoaxers, Holocausr deniers and
> >>>>>>>>> 9/11 truthers.
> >>>>>>>> If a NASA official would ask the media not to give equal weight to
> >>>>>>>> moon-landing hoaxers it would indicate that NASA has a credibility
> >>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>> What you are doing is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you
> >>>>>>> do not agree with them, simply because they work for the government.
> >>>>>> No, Sir, I am not calling for censorship. You do. The government will
> >>>>>> never have any difficulty expressing its points. But when it wants to
> >>>>>> create such hurdles to those with opposing views - this is called
> >>>>>> censorship.
> >>>>>> By the way, your last sentence can be turned on you: what you are doing
> >>>>>> is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you do not agree with
> >>>>>> them.-
> >>>>> Censorship is the control of what people read, write, see, or hear.
> >>>>> The key word being CONTROL. Regardless of her position in government,
> >>>>> she has the absolute right to express herself. Period. End of
> >>>>> discussion. What you seem to be proposing is that because she is in
> >>>>> government, she cannot fully express herself.
> >>>> Expressing herself is quite different from asking the media not to let
> >>>> others to express themselves - that is to control what people read, see
> >>>> and hear. This is censorship. End of discussion.
> >>> She isn't suggesting they not be allowed to express themselves.
> >>> But that the reporting be kept to a minimum with disclaimers that the
> >>> antivaxers have no evidence or facts to back their beliefs.
> >> So, she orders the media to take her side.
>
> > I saw no such *order*.  Could you 1) cite the*order* and 2) provide a
> > link to where she has the authority to do so?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> >  It is not enough to her
> >> to say it herself: hey, do not listen to these loons. No, she does not
> >> want to rely on her free speech and on persuasive powers of Dr.Offit.
> >> She wants support from supposedly objective moderators - why is that?
>
> > No, she does not want support. What she is correctly pointing out is
> > that the anti-vax side has failed arguments which have resulted in
> > public heath problems. She is correctly concerned that these problems
> > could get worse.
>
> > Also of concern is undoing the damage cause by Wakefield and the anti-
> > vac liars.
>
> >> And who would resist such a request from a powerful government official?
>
> > It happens all the time.
>
> >> That's censorship.
>
> > No, that is standing up for a principal and letting people know the
> > consequences of their actions.
>
> Standing for principle is speaking out and expressing one's view.
> Asking the media to limit somebody else's expression of their views
> is censorship.

You just do not get it. Her comments do not prevent anyone from saying
anything. She is asking for the media to stop hyping the discredited
bullshit of the anti-vax, which have adversely affected public health.
It is her DUTY to protect the public health.

>
> Yes, there was no order and she has no authority. But everybody
> knows that resisting a request from a top official comes with a price
> and usually is not good for business.

Paranoia. Sorry you suffer from it.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Actual
> >>> studies show there is no coupled cause and effect.
> >>> I would suggest any reporting of their free expression should start
> >>> with a disclaimer the antivaxers are batshit crazy and have no leg to
> >>> which stand.
> >> Disclaimer from who? Who is disclaiming what? Vax pushers are free to
> >> say that, who else do you want to ditto it?-

From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 22, 10:38 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Bob Officer wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:18:51 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> > <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> Bob Officer wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:51:07 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> >>> <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ms. WRONG has a serious reading comprehension problem. This yarn is
> >>>>>>>>> taken from a Readers Digest article by Arthur Allen, who is certainly
> >>>>>>>>> diametrically the opposite of Mr. Allen on the issue of vaccines. Mr.
> >>>>>>>>> Allen quotes:
> >>>>>>>>> "We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give
> >>>>>>>>> the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what
> >>>>>>>>> science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines."
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.rd.com/health-slideshows/h1n1-the-report-card/article17474...
> >>>>>>>>> These is NO call for censorship or anything else Katie WRONG whines
> >>>>>>>>> about. Madame Secretary is correctly pointing out that the views of
> >>>>>>>>> the anti-vaxxers arenot supported by sceince or facts. Thus, they
> >>>>>>>>> should not be given equal weight.
> >>>>>>>> No Sir, this IS censorship when it comes from the government.
> >>>>>>>> Saying "they should not be given equal weight" is one thing,
> >>>>>>>> saying the same thing from a position of a Cabinet Secretary is quite
> >>>>>>>> different. Reaching out to the media and asking them for preferential
> >>>>>>>> treatment for yourself and limiting opposing views IS censorship..
> >>>>>>>> Even if you believe that you are censoring the bad guys (and even if
> >>>>>>>> they were bad guys) it is censorship.
> >>>>>>>>> I see nothing wrong with that. It is akin to having to give equal
> >>>>>>>>> weight to flat-earthers, moon-landing hoaxers, Holocausr deniers and
> >>>>>>>>> 9/11 truthers.
> >>>>>>>> If a NASA official would ask the media not to give equal weight to
> >>>>>>>> moon-landing hoaxers it would indicate that NASA has a credibility
> >>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>> What you are doing is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you
> >>>>>>> do not agree with them, simply because they work for the government.
> >>>>>> No, Sir, I am not calling for censorship. You do. The government will
> >>>>>> never have any difficulty expressing its points. But when it wants to
> >>>>>> create such hurdles to those with opposing views - this is called
> >>>>>> censorship.
>
> >>>>>> By the way, your last sentence can be turned on you: what you are doing
> >>>>>> is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you do not agree with
> >>>>>> them.-
> >>>>> Censorship is the control of what people read, write, see, or hear.
> >>>>> The key word being CONTROL. Regardless of her position in government,
> >>>>> she has the absolute right to express herself. Period. End of
> >>>>> discussion. What you seem to be proposing is that because she is in
> >>>>> government, she cannot fully express herself.
>
> >>>> Expressing herself is quite different from asking the media not to let
> >>>> others to express themselves - that is to control what people read, see
> >>>> and hear. This is censorship. End of discussion.
> >>> She isn't suggesting they not be allowed to express themselves.
> >>> But that the reporting be kept to a minimum with disclaimers that the
> >>> antivaxers have no evidence or facts to back their beliefs.
> >> So, she orders the media to take her side. It is not enough to her
>
> > She asked the media to become more responsible. She has no power to
> > "order" or silence. However she can weight in come time for tv/radio
> > license renewal time and point out the medical and social
> > irresponsibility of the media outlets.
>
> You openly defend censorship but do not admit it.
> Imagine someone like Russian PM Putin refusing to renew a license for
> an "irresponsible" media outlet.
>
> > You're trying to take a ant mound and turn it isn't mountain. it will
> > not wash Mike.
>
> I am only calling a spade a spade.
>
> >> to say it herself: hey, do not listen to these loons. No, she does not
> >> want to rely on her free speech and on persuasive powers of Dr.Offit.
>
> > Offit already won his case. the special masters cases are decided.
> > the word on the street is you antivax horse is dead.
>
> Off topic. It's not about vaccine court cases (and of course the courts
> are not a scientific authority).
>
> >> She wants support from supposedly objective moderators - why is that?
> >> And who would resist such a request from a powerful government official?
>
> >> That's censorship.
>
> > No Bush refusing to let media photograph the coffins returning or
> > report about the war without "embedding" the press, was censorship.
>
> What she was doing is akin Bush asking the media not to give equal
> weight to those skeptical about Iraqi WMD. Or maybe he indeed asked for
> that? The media complied anyway.

I hate Bush's guts for what he did. However, the media covered the
people who were skeptical about the presence of WMDs quite well. I
guess history is another one of you short suits.

>
>
>
> > You are at the wrong tree, Mike, Stop barking.
>
> >>> Actual
> >>> studies show there is no coupled cause and effect.
>
> >>> I would suggest any reporting of their free expression should start
> >>> with a disclaimer the antivaxers are batshit crazy and have no leg to
> >>> which stand.
>
> >> Disclaimer from who? Who is disclaiming what? Vax pushers are free to
> >> say that, who else do you want to ditto it?
>
> > When you make claims which continue to run counter to all existing
> > evidence, then you are batshit crazy.



From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 22, 10:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Bob Officer wrote:
> > Did you know when asperger's was included in the autism spectrum
> > disorder, the number of people with autism doubled in less than a
> > year. IT doesn't mean it actually doubled  the number of people with
> > autism disorder, it just counted them.
>
> Evidence please.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> By the way, one researcher very carefully suggests a possible
> >> existence of such a mechanism.
> >>http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe....
>
> > What do you know that blog agrees with me. or did you read the 1st
> > paragraph? Did you understand it? Do you know the history of the
> > Autism since it was 1st described by Kenner? Do you know the year
> > Asperger's was added to the condition we know call Autism?
>
> > Now did you pay any attention to this paragraph:
>
> > <cite>
> > "This statement was made months before the Lancet retracted the
> > infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's paper, linking
> > autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper was retracted
> > after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British regulators
> > leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and was paid by
> > the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have been
> > several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying that
> > MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4)."
> > <cite>
>
> > If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> > conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> > Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.
>
> Dr.Mikovit's study is independent of Wakefield's. If it has similar
> results (and I am not stating it has) then it would confirm Wakefield's
> results, not other way around.

Citation? I have never seen this.

>
>
>
>
>
> > While I do agree XMRV is an avenue of exploration. and thank you for
> > the blog link.
>
> > It doesn't change what I said as far as being 100% accurate.