From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 21, 3:49 am, COUSIN Jan Drew-PROBERT <jdrew63...(a)aol.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 20, 10:03 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>
> > So much for your medical knowledge. No mention of lactose
> > intolerance.
>
> > and subsequent
>
> Mark cannot post without insulting.  Thus, making himself a lying when
> he posted *I read Torah everyday*.

COUSIN Jan, I proved he was wrong. You do not like that.
From: Mike on
Bob Officer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:51:07 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> <Mike(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
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?
And who would resist such a request from a powerful government official?

That's censorship.

> 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: Mike on
Mark Probert-Drew wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:10 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> 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/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.
>>> 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.-
>
> Your position, i.e. censor the government employee, is counter
> Orwellian.
>

This is a distortion, I am not calling for censorship of top government
officials (a Secretary is, you know, a bit more than a government
employee). My position is not to let them stifle opponents' speech.
From: Mike on
dr_jeff wrote:
> For PKU, there is evidence of more than one gene involved from the above
> (there are classic and other types).
>
> For lactose tolerance, there are different mutations that all cause the
> lactose gene to be expressed much later than normal. That's why many
> people can tolerate lactose into adulthood.
>
> BTW, lactose intolerance is the normal case, because, before man learned
> to drink cow and other mammal milk (excluding humans), the lactose gene
> turned off at a few years of age.
>
>> and subsequent
>>> mental retardation is the result of lactose exposure.
>>> It is preventable.
>
> Autism has nothing to do with lactose tolerance or lack thereof. Lactose
> intolerance will cause problems with diarrhea, gas and bloating. In
> fact, there is no good evidence that milk, lactose or the digestive
> system have anything to do autism.

I did not say it does. I just gave an example of a genetic disorder
that can be successfully treated - PKU.

> The studies that suggest that autism
> has something to do with the digestive tract were all done by proponents
> of the conjecture that autism is caused by vaccine. However, when
> replicated by reputable scientists, the results were not replicated
> (i.e., the reputable scientists found no correlation between vaccines,
> the digestive tract and autism).
>

The causes and mechanisms are unknown, and nothing can be fully ruled
out. Reputable scientists denied for very long that bacterial infection
causes intestinal ulcers. They were wrong.

By the way, a recent study showed a possible link between autism and
infections, the lead author speculated about a possible vaccine-autism
link. Will you dismiss that out of hand?
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infecti.php
From: Mike on
Bob Officer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:12:53 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> <Mike(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:42:19 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, 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.
>>> We see, there is no coupling mechanism for vaccines.
>>>
>>> If you think there is, I would also bet you believe in the invisible
>>> sky pixie and astrology too.
>>>
>>>
>> We see, there is no known coupling mechanism with anything.
>> Apparently, autism does not exist.
>
> Autism is a collection of symptoms. It is called a 'spectrum'
> disorder for a very good reason. There is a set of different criteria
> IIRC the number is now 21), a child is considered to be autistic if
> they met a set number (11?) of the listed criteria. The diagnosis is
> subjective and not objective. The number of criteria has increase
> several times and with every increase in number of criteria, more
> children have been classed as autistic.
>
> So My statement is still 100%.
>
>
Your autism holocaust denial is a separate topic.

Your statement is "there is no coupling mechanism between autism
and vaccines" is incomplete. It should read: "as of today, there is
no coupling mechanism...".

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