From: Mike on
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.
From: Mike on
Bob Officer 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/article174741-1.html
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Nope, It is statement based in facts. The Stance has no support and
> is doing the public harm by giving them any weight at all.
>

It is straight from a dictator's playbook: facts are on the side of our
beloved leader and the so-called views of so-called opposition are not
supported by evidence. Giving them any exposure will do enormous public
harm.

> What she said it is like giving flat earthers any attention at all.
> "The Sky" isn't falling.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Nope. The sky isn't falling and giving them air time contributes to
> the failing american health program.

You just expressed explicit support for censorship. Why not say so?

>
>>> 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.
>
> Nope, it is simply asking people not to spread baseless lies and
> rumors.

And people will make conclusions - what is this guy afraid of?

>
> It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The person yelling
> 'Fire' is liable and responsible for any and all harm caused by the
> panic.

There is a huge difference - time for deliberation. When somebody cries
fire the building management does not have time to inspect and to
communicate their findings to the public. You are pro-censorship because
you are afraid people will hear something you do not want them to hear.
From: Peter B. on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote in message
news:cpWdnYNjYP79awLWnZ2dnUVZ8hudnZ2d(a)bt.com...

> Hmmmm.I know some of you might be thinking "Emory University is in the
> news a lot lately!" Yes, Emory has been in the news a great deal thanks to
> the amazing anti- corruption work of Senator Charles Grassley. Ms.
> Sebelius should dump Arthur Allen and have a conversation with someone who
> is actually doing something to restore public confidence in our health
> systems by fighting the fraud and greed inherent at places like Emory.
> Grassley is conducting an investigation a pervasive pattern of corruption
> among Emory researchers who fail to disclose significant financial
> conflicts of interest in the outcomes of the research they conduct. Isn't
> it interesting that

Andrew Chung is tied into Emory as a researcher also, isn't he?

From: Mark Probert on
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.

As for agreeing with experts, you are quite right. I agree with the
experts who have facts, science and logic. The anti-vac "experts" have
none of these factors. Like moon landing hoaxers.

From: Happy Oyster on
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:42:19 -0400, Mike <Mike(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:

>Bob Officer wrote:
>> There is no coupling mechanism between Autism and Vaccines.
>
>There is no coupling mechanism between autism and anything,
>for that matter. The mechanisms are not known - yet.

That is a damned lie.

..
--
Die volle H�rte: http://www.kindersprechstunde.at
***************************************************************
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5710