AUTISM: THE EVOLUTION OF A DISEASE by Bryan Jepson, MD

[john]

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html

[Vaccine-man]

john wrote:
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html

I especially like this part:

"There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."

I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
coming over to our side.

[PeterB]

Vaccine-man wrote:
> john wrote:
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>
> I especially like this part:
>
> "There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
> autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
> removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
> completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
> have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."
>
> I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
> to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
> coming over to our side.

I hate to disappoint you, Mr. Pharmablogger, but no one ever said
autism is soley attributable to thimerosal. Not everyone who gets
lung cancer is also a smoker, for instance. That doesn't mean smoking
is good for you.

PeterB

[Vaccine-man]

PeterB wrote:

> I hate to disappoint you,

I'm sure you do.

> Mr. Pharmablogger,

Wow, "pharmablogger" - did you invent a new word?

> but no one ever said autism is soley attributable to thimerosal.

It's not even remotely associated with thimerosal. The point is, john
has a document on his web page from a physician ("allopath") who
accepts that vaccines (and thimerosal) are not associated with the
incidence of autisms.

[PeterB]

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > I hate to disappoint you,
>
> I'm sure you do.
>
> > Mr. Pharmablogger,
>
> Wow, "pharmablogger" - did you invent a new word?
>
> > but no one ever said autism is soley attributable to thimerosal.
>
> It's not even remotely associated with thimerosal. The point is, john
> has a document on his web page from a physician ("allopath") who
> accepts that vaccines (and thimerosal) are not associated with the
> incidence of autisms.

No, he simply quotes a physician who acknowledges that for every
disease process, there can be multiple vectors. He does not say that
thimerosal in vaccine has not been associated with autism.

PeterB

[PeterB]

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > I hate to disappoint you,
>
> I'm sure you do.
>
> > Mr. Pharmablogger,
>
> Wow, "pharmablogger" - did you invent a new word?
>
> > but no one ever said autism is soley attributable to thimerosal.
>
> It's not even remotely associated with thimerosal. The point is, john
> has a document on his web page from a physician ("allopath") who
> accepts that vaccines (and thimerosal) are not associated with the
> incidence of autisms.

No, he simply quotes a physician who acknowledges that for every
disease process, there can be multiple vectors. He does not say that
thimerosal in vaccine has never been associated with autism.

PeterB

[john]

"Vaccine-man" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> john wrote:
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>
> I especially like this part:
>
> "There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
> autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
> removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
> completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
> have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."
>
> I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
> to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
> coming over to our side.
>

Mercury doesn't cause or contribute to autism? He doesn't say that, the
bottle with the deaths head on it is a sort of clue, but you see what you
want to see, your time is going to be up afore long

[Mark]

john wrote:
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html


So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!

I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.

Mark, MD

[PeterB]

Mark wrote:
> john wrote:
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>
>
> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
>
> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.

Ad hominem. Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.

[Mark]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > john wrote:
> > > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> >
> >
> > So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> > treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> > it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
> >
> > I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> > in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
>
> Ad hominem. Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.


#1 -- Learn the meaning of the term "ad hominem".

#2 -- Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have committed at least two
serious ethical lapses while putting together his paper on the
purported (and now soundly discredited) MMR --> autism hypothesis.

#3 -- Nothing is 100% safe.

Mark, MD

[john]

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kirby6.html

Someone finally did the math and sent the resulting information to Merck in
1991. They decided to sit on the information and not share it. It wasn't
until 1999, when Congress had ordered the FDA to look at mercury in
medicines, that they finally shared their findings. One small group at the
FDA finally converted the dosages to micrograms. They added it all up and
found out that kids were being slammed with ten, 20, 30, 100 times more
mercury than they were supposed to get, and that it was being injected
directly into their little bodies. I did some of the math the other day and
I couldn't believe my eyes. I actually had to double-check my figures
because I couldn't believe it. If you figure that at two months, a
reasonably average baby weighs about ten pounds. That child should not be
exposed to more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per day. But on one day, in
that second month, a child could get as much as three shots containing
mercury totaling 62.5 micrograms. That's 125 times over the EPA
limit.....When all is said and done and everything comes out, if it's proven
conclusively that mercury in vaccines led to the autism epidemic in this
country, and that Merck had that memo in 1991, then they are perhaps partly
culpable. 1991 was even before Hepatitis B was added to the vaccination
schedule, which obviously added to the mercury load with which we were
injecting our children. It would appear that Merck kept its mouth shut and a
decade of children were exposed to this stuff.

Let me tell you a little bit about Simpsonwood. The Simpsonwood Conference
Center meeting happened in June of 2000. When the CDC had looked at the data
(right after they said the mercury should come out), they decided to look
further and see if maybe mercury was harmful. How's that for timing? They
had a guy working for them from Belgium, who was just here for a couple of
years, Thomas Verstraeten. They dumped the mercury issue in his lap and
said, "Here, look at the numbers." As it turns out, he was probably a pretty
honorable guy. I think he just wanted to do good science, and he was so far
removed from American politics and pharmaceutical company politics that he
could try. He was honest. He ran the numbers and his first run of the
numbers was just shocking. They showed an elevated rate of autism of 7.62
for kids who received more than 25 micrograms at one month of age compared
to kids who received none. He sent his findings out, and, not liking the
numbers, they had him re-run them. So he re-stratified the kids and broke
them down to various categories and groups and he managed to get the autism
rate down to 2.48. Anything over 2.0 in a court of law is considered
causation. Remember, he started with 7.62. He wrote an e-mail to his
colleagues, a very famous e-mail called, "It Just Won't Go Away." I almost
titled the book that, because the phrase comes up repeatedly.

When you put the findings and the e-mails together, the situation comes into
context, and it becomes very clear what they were saying, and that they were
extremely concerned. An increased autism risk of 2.48 was clearly
unacceptable, so they re-ran the numbers again, adding more kids in, and got
the autism rate down to 1.69. Then they took the new figure and they had
this meeting at Simpsonwood where they invited the FDA, the drug company
people, the pediatrics people, and the government people, and they had a
little powwow. They didn't invite anybody from the public, including
SafeMinds. There was talk of inviting SafeMinds but, in the end, that group
didn't get an invitation. At this meeting Verstraeten spent two days
presenting his findings. There was a discussion and there was a transcriber
there.

I sometimes wonder if these people knew that they were being recorded,
because when you read the minutes you just can't believe the atrocities:
they're shocking. I'm sure they didn't think that the minutes would ever see
the light of day. Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act; America is a
great country. Thank God we have a media and thank God we have parents like
the ones in SafeMinds who stayed on top of this. Otherwise we would never
have gotten this information. I'm not even an investigative reporter. These
people just dumped documents on me and I went through them. That was hard,
but it wasn't as hard as what they did, and I really admire them.

[PeterB]

Mark wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
> > > john wrote:
> > > > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> > >
> > >
> > > So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> > > treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> > > it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
> > >
> > > I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> > > in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
> >
> > Ad hominem. Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
>
>
> #1 -- Learn the meaning of the term "ad hominem".

I hope you will. Appealing to your prejudices rather than to the facts
of an issue doesn't make an argument. Do you have any RCTs proving
vaccine safety? No? I didn't think so.

> #2 -- Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have committed at least two
> serious ethical lapses while putting together his paper on the
> purported (and now soundly discredited) MMR --> autism hypothesis.

Another ad hominem. Wakefield is not the issue.
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm

> #3 -- Nothing is 100% safe.

Evidence based medicine requires that you determine the risk-adjusted
benefit of any medication before promoting it. That's never been done
for the majority of medical interventions, and certainly not for
vaccine.

PeterB

[Mark Probert]

PeterB wrote:
> Vaccine-man wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>> I especially like this part:
>>
>> "There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
>> autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
>> removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
>> completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
>> have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."
>>
>> I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
>> to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
>> coming over to our side.
>
> I hate to disappoint you, Mr. Pharmablogger, but no one ever said
> autism is soley attributable to thimerosal. Not everyone who gets
> lung cancer is also a smoker, for instance. That doesn't mean smoking
> is good for you.

Petey, while you were away, a study was reported which is virtually
conclusive on the issue of whether thimerosal causes autism. Guess what?
It doesn't.

However, of course, the anti-vac, pro-dead child liars, are trashing the
principal investigator. No surprise, since they do not have the facts on
their side any longer.

And, a court decision threw out Geier's and Haley's testiMONEY, as being
worthless. This case leads the way for the USDOJ to exclude their
testiMONEY in the upcoming omnibus claim, and probably toss out the
other so called experts.

Further, I am aware of an upcoming expose of the Geier's, who are liars,
which make all of their previously reported lies seem insignificant in
comparison.

[Mark Probert]

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>> I hate to disappoint you,
>
> I'm sure you do.
>
>> Mr. Pharmablogger,
>
> Wow, "pharmablogger" - did you invent a new word?

Yes, Petey invented that as a form of the fallacy of "poisoning the
well" in his feeble and pathetic attempt to marginalize those with whom
he disagrees.

>> but no one ever said autism is soley attributable to thimerosal.
>
> It's not even remotely associated with thimerosal. The point is, john
> has a document on his web page from a physician ("allopath") who
> accepts that vaccines (and thimerosal) are not associated with the
> incidence of autisms.

John does that, posts links that disagree with him to prove he is right.

[Mark Probert]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>>
>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
>>
>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
>
> Ad hominem.

Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.

> Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.

No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.

[HCN]

"Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
...
....> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to this?
> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>
> Thanx
>
> Bryan

Are you thinking of this:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

[Mark Probert]

Bryan Heit wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>
>>> Vaccine-man wrote:
>>>
>>>> john wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>>>>
>>>> I especially like this part:
>>>>
>>>> "There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
>>>> autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
>>>> removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
>>>> completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
>>>> have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."
>>>>
>>>> I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
>>>> to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
>>>> coming over to our side.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hate to disappoint you, Mr. Pharmablogger, but no one ever said
>>> autism is soley attributable to thimerosal. Not everyone who gets
>>> lung cancer is also a smoker, for instance. That doesn't mean smoking
>>> is good for you.
>>
>>
>> Petey, while you were away, a study was reported which is virtually
>> conclusive on the issue of whether thimerosal causes autism. Guess
>> what? It doesn't.
>>
>> However, of course, the anti-vac, pro-dead child liars, are trashing
>> the principal investigator. No surprise, since they do not have the
>> facts on their side any longer.
>>
>> And, a court decision threw out Geier's and Haley's testiMONEY, as
>> being worthless. This case leads the way for the USDOJ to exclude
>> their testiMONEY in the upcoming omnibus claim, and probably toss out
>> the other so called experts.
>
> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to this?
> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
> you, would you mind re-posting it?

Being the investigator that I am, I have found the missing link:

http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

[Mark Probert]

HCN wrote:
> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to this?
>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>
>> Thanx
>>
>> Bryan
>
> Are you thinking of this:
> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.

[HCN]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> HCN wrote:
>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to
>> this?
>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>
>>> Thanx
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>
>> Are you thinking of this:
>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>
> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.

Okay, good to know.

[HCN]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> HCN wrote:
>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to
>> this?
>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>
>>> Thanx
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>
>> Are you thinking of this:
>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>
> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.

I see it now on the blog:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision

[Mark Probert]

HCN wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> HCN wrote:
>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to
>>> this?
>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanx
>>>>
>>>> Bryan
>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>
> I see it now on the blog:
> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision


the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when he
noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the case.
I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively bootstrapping
his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the last
of his garbage.

Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the way.

[cathyb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> HCN wrote:
> > "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> HCN wrote:
> >>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to
> >>> this?
> >>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
> >>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanx
> >>>>
> >>>> Bryan
> >>> Are you thinking of this:
> >>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
> >> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
> >
> > I see it now on the blog:
> > http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>
>
> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when he
> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the case.
> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively bootstrapping
> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the last
> of his garbage.
>
> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the way.


"...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."

That was a lovely read, thank you.

Cathy

[Bryan Heit]

HCN wrote:
> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to this?
>
>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>>you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>
>>Thanx
>>
>>Bryan
>
>
> Are you thinking of this:
> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

That's it, thanx

Bryan

[Mark Probert]

cathyb wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> HCN wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards to
>>>>> this?
>>>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it was
>>>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>>>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>>> I see it now on the blog:
>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>>
>> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
>> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when he
>> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the case.
>> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively bootstrapping
>> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the last
>> of his garbage.
>>
>> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the way.
>
>
> "...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
> diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
> Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
> neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
> Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
> examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
> Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
> threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
> a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
> to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."
>
> That was a lovely read, thank you.

There is more to come.

[Vaccine-man]

john wrote:
> "Vaccine-man" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > john wrote:
> >> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> >
> > I especially like this part:
> >
> > "There are a lot of people who believe that mercury is the cause of
> > autism. I think that mercury plays a role, but I don't think that the
> > removal of thimerosal from vaccines will cause autism to go away
> > completely. In fact, I know it won't because I've seen kids who
> > have not been exposed to thimerosal who are still autistic."
> >
> > I'm rather surprised, john, that you might actually might be starting
> > to also believe that thimerosal is not connected to autism. Glad you're
> > coming over to our side.
> >
>
> Mercury doesn't cause or contribute to autism? He doesn't say that, the
> bottle with the deaths head on it is a sort of clue, but you see what you
> want to see, your time is going to be up afore long

Dude, the word he (and I) used was "thimerosal" - not mercury. Do you
have reading comprehension issues?

[john]

"Vaccine-man" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>

>>
>> Mercury doesn't cause or contribute to autism? He doesn't say that, the
>> bottle with the deaths head on it is a sort of clue, but you see what you
>> want to see, your time is going to be up afore long
>
> Dude, the word he (and I) used was "thimerosal" - not mercury. Do you
> have reading comprehension issues?
>

You are clutching at straws, but you vaccine boys need to

[Jeff]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vaccine-man" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>
>>>
>>> Mercury doesn't cause or contribute to autism? He doesn't say that,
>>> the
>>> bottle with the deaths head on it is a sort of clue, but you see what
>>> you
>>> want to see, your time is going to be up afore long
>>
>> Dude, the word he (and I) used was "thimerosal" - not mercury. Do you
>> have reading comprehension issues?
>>
>
> You are clutching at straws, but you vaccine boys need to

No, he is pointing out that mercury and thimerasol are two different things.

In medicine and science, you need to pay attention to the details.

Jeff

[PeterB]

john wrote:
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kirby6.html
>
> Someone finally did the math and sent the resulting information to Merck in
> 1991. They decided to sit on the information and not share it. It wasn't
> until 1999, when Congress had ordered the FDA to look at mercury in
> medicines, that they finally shared their findings. One small group at the
> FDA finally converted the dosages to micrograms. They added it all up and
> found out that kids were being slammed with ten, 20, 30, 100 times more
> mercury than they were supposed to get, and that it was being injected
> directly into their little bodies. I did some of the math the other day and
> I couldn't believe my eyes. I actually had to double-check my figures
> because I couldn't believe it. If you figure that at two months, a
> reasonably average baby weighs about ten pounds. That child should not be
> exposed to more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per day. But on one day, in
> that second month, a child could get as much as three shots containing
> mercury totaling 62.5 micrograms. That's 125 times over the EPA
> limit.....When all is said and done and everything comes out, if it's proven
> conclusively that mercury in vaccines led to the autism epidemic in this
> country, and that Merck had that memo in 1991, then they are perhaps partly
> culpable. 1991 was even before Hepatitis B was added to the vaccination
> schedule, which obviously added to the mercury load with which we were
> injecting our children. It would appear that Merck kept its mouth shut and a
> decade of children were exposed to this stuff.
>
> Let me tell you a little bit about Simpsonwood. The Simpsonwood Conference
> Center meeting happened in June of 2000. When the CDC had looked at the data
> (right after they said the mercury should come out), they decided to look
> further and see if maybe mercury was harmful. How's that for timing? They
> had a guy working for them from Belgium, who was just here for a couple of
> years, Thomas Verstraeten. They dumped the mercury issue in his lap and
> said, "Here, look at the numbers." As it turns out, he was probably a pretty
> honorable guy. I think he just wanted to do good science, and he was so far
> removed from American politics and pharmaceutical company politics that he
> could try. He was honest. He ran the numbers and his first run of the
> numbers was just shocking. They showed an elevated rate of autism of 7.62
> for kids who received more than 25 micrograms at one month of age compared
> to kids who received none. He sent his findings out, and, not liking the
> numbers, they had him re-run them. So he re-stratified the kids and broke
> them down to various categories and groups and he managed to get the autism
> rate down to 2.48. Anything over 2.0 in a court of law is considered
> causation. Remember, he started with 7.62. He wrote an e-mail to his
> colleagues, a very famous e-mail called, "It Just Won't Go Away." I almost
> titled the book that, because the phrase comes up repeatedly.
>
> When you put the findings and the e-mails together, the situation comes into
> context, and it becomes very clear what they were saying, and that they were
> extremely concerned. An increased autism risk of 2.48 was clearly
> unacceptable, so they re-ran the numbers again, adding more kids in, and got
> the autism rate down to 1.69. Then they took the new figure and they had
> this meeting at Simpsonwood where they invited the FDA, the drug company
> people, the pediatrics people, and the government people, and they had a
> little powwow. They didn't invite anybody from the public, including
> SafeMinds. There was talk of inviting SafeMinds but, in the end, that group
> didn't get an invitation. At this meeting Verstraeten spent two days
> presenting his findings. There was a discussion and there was a transcriber
> there.
>
> I sometimes wonder if these people knew that they were being recorded,
> because when you read the minutes you just can't believe the atrocities:
> they're shocking. I'm sure they didn't think that the minutes would ever see
> the light of day. Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act; America is a
> great country. Thank God we have a media and thank God we have parents like
> the ones in SafeMinds who stayed on top of this. Otherwise we would never
> have gotten this information. I'm not even an investigative reporter. These
> people just dumped documents on me and I went through them. That was hard,
> but it wasn't as hard as what they did, and I really admire them.

Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
is out there.

PeterB

[Mark Probert]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> john wrote:
>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
>>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
>>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
>>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
>>> Ad hominem.
>> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
>> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
>
> Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
> that's pretty funny.

Did you make a point in that?

>> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
>>
>> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
>> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
>
> That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
> diarrhea.

Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.

[PeterB]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
> >>> Mark wrote:
> >>>> john wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> >>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> >>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> >>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> >>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
> >>> Ad hominem.
> >> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
> >> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
> >
> > Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
> > that's pretty funny.
>
> Did you make a point in that?

yes.

> >> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
> >>
> >> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
> >> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
> >
> > That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
> > diarrhea.
>
> Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.

The truth hurts, but I promise it won't harm you.

[Mark Probert]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> PeterB wrote:
>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>>>>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
>>>>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
>>>>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
>>>>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
>>>>> Ad hominem.
>>>> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
>>>> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
>>> Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
>>> that's pretty funny.
>> Did you make a point in that?
>
> yes.
>
>>>> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
>>>>
>>>> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
>>>> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
>>> That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
>>> diarrhea.
>> Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.
>
> The truth hurts, but I promise it won't harm you.
>
I was more concerned about dieing of laughter.

[PeterB]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
> >>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>> PeterB wrote:
> >>>>> Mark wrote:
> >>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> >>>>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> >>>>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> >>>>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> >>>>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
> >>>>> Ad hominem.
> >>>> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
> >>>> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
> >>> Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
> >>> that's pretty funny.
> >> Did you make a point in that?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> >>>> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
> >>>>
> >>>> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
> >>>> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
> >>> That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
> >>> diarrhea.
> >> Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.
> >
> > The truth hurts, but I promise it won't harm you.
> >
> I was more concerned about dieing of laughter.

Reading your own jokes will be the cure for that. ;;))

[john]

"PeterB" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
> promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
> direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
> is out there.
>
> PeterB
>

You can believe what you want, and they do, you can see them chewing on
bull**** on their blog sites

Blaylock did the best analysis of Simpsonwood
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html

just that one doc is enough for anyone who likes the truth

extracts http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock_q.html

[vernon]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PeterB" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
>> promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
>> direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
>> is out there.
>>
>> PeterB
>>
>
> You can believe what you want, and they do, you can see them chewing on
> bull**** on their blog sites
>
> Blaylock did the best analysis of Simpsonwood
> http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html
>
> just that one doc is enough for anyone who likes the truth
>
> extracts http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock_q.html
>

Blaylock is pretty savvy and seldom goes away from hard research.

[Mark Probert]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> PeterB wrote:
>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>> PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
>>>>>>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
>>>>>>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
>>>>>>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
>>>>>>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
>>>>>>> Ad hominem.
>>>>>> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
>>>>>> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
>>>>> Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
>>>>> that's pretty funny.
>>>> Did you make a point in that?
>>> yes.
>>>
>>>>>> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
>>>>>> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
>>>>> That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
>>>>> diarrhea.
>>>> Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.
>>> The truth hurts, but I promise it won't harm you.
>>>
>> I was more concerned about dieing of laughter.
>
> Reading your own jokes will be the cure for that. ;;))

Not in the slightest.

[Vaccine-man]

PeterB wrote:
> john wrote:
<snip mumbo-jumbo>

> Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
> promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors,

What!? You mean I *could be getting paid* to say all this? Where do I
pick up my check?

I'm curious, do you receive monetary gain for writing the things you
write on this ng?

> but it won't change the direction of public consciousness
> on this issue as long as the message is out there.

Well, since most parents vaccinate their children, that's good news. I
hope the others, whom I lovingly refer to as 'social parasites', are
happy that their children are less likely to catch one of these
infectious diseases because the rest of us choose to vaccinate our
children.

[HCN]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> cathyb wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> HCN wrote:
>>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>>>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>>>>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>>>> I see it now on the blog:
>>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>>>
>>> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
>>> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when he
>>> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the case.
>>> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively bootstrapping
>>> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the last
>>> of his garbage.
>>>
>>> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the
>>> way.
>>
>>
>> "...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
>> diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
>> Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
>> neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
>> Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
>> examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
>> Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
>> threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
>> a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
>> to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."
>>
>> That was a lovely read, thank you.
>
> There is more to come.

And here it is!
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/103/significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-evolution-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-five

[Mark Probert]

HCN wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> cathyb wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>>>>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>>>>>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>>>>> I see it now on the blog:
>>>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>>>> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
>>>> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when he
>>>> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the case.
>>>> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively bootstrapping
>>>> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the last
>>>> of his garbage.
>>>>
>>>> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> "...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
>>> diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
>>> Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
>>> neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
>>> Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
>>> examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
>>> Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
>>> threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
>>> a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
>>> to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."
>>>
>>> That was a lovely read, thank you.
>> There is more to come.
>
> And here it is!
> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/103/significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-evolution-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-five

INCORRECT!

(I am a few topics ahead.....)

email me at mark-dot-probert-at-gmail-dot-com and I will forward you a
heads up.

[HCN]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> HCN wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> cathyb wrote:
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>>>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>>>>>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>>>>>>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>>>>>> I see it now on the blog:
>>>>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>>>>> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
>>>>> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when
>>>>> he
>>>>> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the
>>>>> case.
>>>>> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively
>>>>> bootstrapping
>>>>> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the
>>>>> last
>>>>> of his garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the
>>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> "...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
>>>> diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
>>>> Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
>>>> neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
>>>> Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
>>>> examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
>>>> Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
>>>> threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
>>>> a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
>>>> to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."
>>>>
>>>> That was a lovely read, thank you.
>>> There is more to come.
>>
>> And here it is!
>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/103/significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-evolution-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-five
>
> INCORRECT!
>
> (I am a few topics ahead.....)
>
> email me at mark-dot-probert-at-gmail-dot-com and I will forward you a
> heads up.
>
>

Maybe later... I'll wait to see what happens (I actually have to deal with
real life now).

But thanks, it should become very interesting... I think I'll have popcorn
the next time I'm logged in.

[PeterB]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >> PeterB wrote:
> >>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>> PeterB wrote:
> >>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>> PeterB wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mark wrote:
> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/jepson.html
> >>>>>>>> So Dr. Jepson is an emergency medicine doctor who works at an autism
> >>>>>>>> treatment center in Utah headed up by executive director...wait for
> >>>>>>>> it...Dr. Andrew Wakefield!!!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder if Wakefield got this job before or after he was reprimanded
> >>>>>>>> in Britain for his shenanigans surrounding his 1998 paper.
> >>>>>>> Ad hominem.
> >>>>>> Coming from the person who uses poisoning the well and ad hominem as you
> >>>>>> do makes me believe that you had your last vestiges of humility removed.
> >>>>> Coming from one whose last vestiges of humility were on his ancestors,
> >>>>> that's pretty funny.
> >>>> Did you make a point in that?
> >>> yes.
> >>>
> >>>>>> > Vaccines have never been proven safe, regardless.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No one claims that they are 100% safe. There are times that I laugh so
> >>>>>> hard from reading your posts that I cannot catch my breath.
> >>>>> That's from swallowing your own bs for so long. You are laughing
> >>>>> diarrhea.
> >>>> Incorrect. I was pointing out that reading your posts is not safe.
> >>> The truth hurts, but I promise it won't harm you.
> >>>
> >> I was more concerned about dieing of laughter.
> >
> > Reading your own jokes will be the cure for that. ;;))
>
> Not in the slightest.

Then in the mostest.

[Mark Probert]

HCN wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> HCN wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> cathyb wrote:
>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> HCN wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Bryan Heit" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> ...> Was it you who had the link the the judges findings in regards
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>>> I thought I had saved the link, but it appears to be lost. If it
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> you, would you mind re-posting it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>>>>>> Are you thinking of this:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
>>>>>>>> Kathleen now has it on Neurodiversity in HTML.
>>>>>>> I see it now on the blog:
>>>>>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/plaintiffs-gambit-failed-rhogam-decision
>>>>>> the more I read it the more I am convinced that Geier and Haley should
>>>>>> look for jobs at McDonald's. The judge nailed Geier four square when
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> noted that Geier's autism research was during the pendency of the
>>>>>> case.
>>>>>> I have no doubt in my mind that Geier is now retroactively
>>>>>> bootstrapping
>>>>>> his prior testimonies with this "research" and we have not seen the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> of his garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch Neurodiversity for more on him. There is a really hot one on the
>>>>>> way.
>>>>> "...the Court finds that Dr. Geier's application of the differential
>>>>> diagnosis technique suffers from its own irregularities. First, the
>>>>> Court notes that Dr. Geier is not a pediatrician or a pediatric
>>>>> neurologist. In fact, testimony was presented to the Court that Dr.
>>>>> Geier was not even successful in sitting for his Medical Board
>>>>> examination in the specific field of pediatric genetics. (See
>>>>> Transcript, Vol. II of III, Document #121, at 65.) Thus, there is a
>>>>> threshold question as to whether Dr. Geier is even qualified to perform
>>>>> a differential diagnosis so as to give a causation opinion with respect
>>>>> to the cause of a neurological disorder such as autism ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> That was a lovely read, thank you.
>>>> There is more to come.
>>> And here it is!
>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/103/significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-evolution-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-five
>> INCORRECT!
>>
>> (I am a few topics ahead.....)
>>
>> email me at mark-dot-probert-at-gmail-dot-com and I will forward you a
>> heads up.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe later... I'll wait to see what happens (I actually have to deal with
> real life now).
>
> But thanks, it should become very interesting... I think I'll have popcorn
> the next time I'm logged in.

Geier provides another petard.

[PeterB]

john wrote:
> "PeterB" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
> > promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
> > direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
> > is out there.
> >
> > PeterB
> >
>
> You can believe what you want, and they do, you can see them chewing on
> bull**** on their blog sites

I agree. What I meant to say is that we have a positive direction in
public consciousness about these issues thanks to people like you.
Pharma interests won't succeed as long as the truth is out there.

> Blaylock did the best analysis of Simpsonwood
> http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html

Yes, I'm impressed with him.

> just that one doc is enough for anyone who likes the truth
>
> extracts http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock_q.html

A good link that everyone should read.

PeterB

[vernon]

"PeterB" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> john wrote:
>> "PeterB" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
>> > promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
>> > direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
>> > is out there.
>> >
>> > PeterB
>> >
>>
>> You can believe what you want, and they do, you can see them chewing on
>> bull**** on their blog sites
>
> I agree. What I meant to say is that we have a positive direction in
> public consciousness about these issues thanks to people like you.
> Pharma interests won't succeed as long as the truth is out there.
>
>> Blaylock did the best analysis of Simpsonwood
>> http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html
>
> Yes, I'm impressed with him.
>
>> just that one doc is enough for anyone who likes the truth
>>
>> extracts http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock_q.html
>
> A good link that everyone should read.
>
> PeterB
>

Now, Peter, If "everyone" here read that, two things would happen.
1. Some might get an education.
2. Some would die in a catatonic fit.

[john]

"vernon" <there@there> wrote in message
...

>
> Now, Peter, If "everyone" here read that, two things would happen.
> 1. Some might get an education.
> 2. Some would die in a catatonic fit.
>

LOL. Rationalisations stop the fits
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/rationalization_h.html the minds defence
mechanism, mind you I wouldn't miss some of these characters

[vernon]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vernon" <there@there> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Now, Peter, If "everyone" here read that, two things would happen.
>> 1. Some might get an education.
>> 2. Some would die in a catatonic fit.
>>
>
> LOL. Rationalisations stop the fits
> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/rationalization_h.html the minds defence
> mechanism, mind you I wouldn't miss some of these characters
>

Not to extend the frivolity too much, but "rationalization?"

[PeterB]

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > john wrote:
> >> "PeterB" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >> > Interesting review, John. Our resident pharma bloggers will keep
> >> > promoting vaccine on behalf of their sponsors, but it won't change the
> >> > direction of public consciousness on this issue as long as the message
> >> > is out there.
> >> >
> >> > PeterB
> >> >
> >>
> >> You can believe what you want, and they do, you can see them chewing on
> >> bull**** on their blog sites
> >
> > I agree. What I meant to say is that we have a positive direction in
> > public consciousness about these issues thanks to people like you.
> > Pharma interests won't succeed as long as the truth is out there.
> >
> >> Blaylock did the best analysis of Simpsonwood
> >> http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html
> >
> > Yes, I'm impressed with him.
> >
> >> just that one doc is enough for anyone who likes the truth
> >>
> >> extracts http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock_q.html
> >
> > A good link that everyone should read.
> >
> > PeterB
> >
>
> Now, Peter, If "everyone" here read that, two things would happen.
> 1. Some might get an education.
> 2. Some would die in a catatonic fit.

I feel them twitching already. ;;)))

[john]

"vernon" <there@there> wrote in message >
> Not to extend the frivolity too much, but "rationalization?"
>

It is the name given by hypnotists when they programme your subconscious
mind without your knowledge, and you then act out the programming, and the
reason you give is called a rationalisation, so medical people are
programmed/brainwashed into believing the pharma beliefs, but can't accept
that fact, so they come up with a whole host of rationalisations which are
absurd to us

I never could figure out why they believe such rubbish until an MD used
basic ad hominem to suppress whale.to links on Wikipedia, and actually
believed it was a valid argument, then I read Carla Emery's book and a quote
by neil Miller, and I got it:

The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant
rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published
pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, "In this
article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will...offer some suggestions
for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy." He also
plainly states, "A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of
DTP-induced brain damage." He makes his recommendation in spite of the
horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal
relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment. The veiled
Rationalization and Denial ploy is harder to detect. At first it appears
logical and sound. But it merely represents a more intricate attempt at
suppressing and confounding the truth. For example, according to some
researchers, the DPT vaccine does not cause seizures; instead, "fever from
the DTP vaccine may trigger one of these seizures."(132) Or, according to an
experienced vaccine policymaker, Ed Mortimer, M.D., "These kids already had
underlying problems and DTP was the first fever-producing insult that
occurred to the child."(133) Again, it wasn't the vaccine that caused the
brain damage; it was the fever from the vaccine. Immunization Ploys-Are
Parents Being Manipulated?by Neil Z. Miller

Rationalization (making up a fake reason) is a major defense mechanism. When
we do things for reasons of which we are not consciously aware, we
rationalize. The obedient enactment of posthypnotic suggestion likewise gets
excused by fake explanations provided by the unconscious to the conscious. A
subject who does not remember being given a posthypnotic suggestion will
always invent an imaginary reason for obeying. His rationalization will be
as plausible as possible. He will consciously believe it even though it is a
lie he has told himself. Posthypnotic suggestions can be beneficial or
harmful. If asked later why he did this particular thing, he will
...."rationalize his conduct by some kind of semi-reasonable explanation...To
anyone acquainted with the real motive, namely, the post*hypnotic
suggestion, these pseudo-motives are very interesting because they are so
similar to the pseudo-motives often given by people to justify actions, the
real reasons for which are unconscious to themselves or, if conscious,
dishonorable." (Estabrooks, Scientific American, p. 216). If a hypnotic
subject is not consciously aware of an implanted posthypnotic suggestion
because of suggested amnesia, then he does not know the real reason he did
the posthypnotic act. In that situation, he will make up some excuse for
what he did, as plausible as possible. He will honestly believe the
rationalization. He has lied to himself, and perhaps also to others, and
believed his lie. After obeying an amnestic posthypnotic suggestion, people
do not say, "I don't know why I did that" (which is their conscious mind's
truth). They do not say, "The hypnotist made me do it" (which is their
uncon*sciously known truth). In*stead, if you ask, "Why did you do that? "
they will make up an excuse which is as believable as possible--and they
will honestly believe whatever they said! A prominent experimental
hypnotist gave a young woman a posthypnotic suggestion to take off one shoe
after she awakened from his hypnosis demonstration. She was to set it on the
table before her. He then suggested amnesia and awakened her: ...she
fidgeted for a few moments, then slipped off one of her shoes with the other
foot, reached down, lifted it, and placed it on the table in front of her.
Then she reached over and took the flowers from a vase on the table and
placed them in her shoe. (LeCron, The Complete Guide to Hypnosis, p. 18)
When the hypnotist asked why she had put flowers in her shoe, the subject
rationalized: "I have a vase at home that looks something like a shoe. I
wondered what kind of flower arrangement I could use with it." ---Secret,
Don't Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery p.221

[vernon]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vernon" <there@there> wrote in message >
>> Not to extend the frivolity too much, but "rationalization?"
>>
>
> It is the name given by hypnotists when they programme your subconscious


I know what it means and I know what twisted words hypnotists use along with
a myriad of psychologists.

BTW inferred, caused, instigated, inserted, mind alteration is NOT
rationalization except to the phony instigator.

Rationalization is a scientific, logic term and quite specific.