From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 22, 9:25�am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> 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.

Why didn't you do that when disbarred?
You remained silent.
And, the consequences were disbarrment.
Your actions were:

22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged
misconduct by the Grievance Committee

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as
to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.


The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.


The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to
cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.


The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent
has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately


From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 22, 3:43�pm, Citizen Jimserac <jimse...(a)gmail.com> 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

LOL!!!!
From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 22, 11:29�pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Mark S Probert insulting again.

He suffers from lying like this:

*Mark Probert-Drew*
From: Jan Drew on
.

> I hate Bush's guts for what he did.

Shame on you. The Bible teaches not to hate the person. Rather the
person's actions.
Does the Torah teach that, also?

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.

Another insult. Proving you do not read Torah everyday.
From: Jan Drew on
On Mar 22, 11:32�pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Then, you need to pay attention.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infecti.php

While the paper published only initial findings relating XMRV to ASDs,
the lead author added to the recent controversy concerning the
association between the MMR vaccine and autism. In October, Dr. Judy
A. Mikovits said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to
autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and
grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T
cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your
immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are
harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now
broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you
have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that
vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system
could no longer control other infections, and created an immune
deficiency" (6). 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).