If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
Dear john and yuri,
It looks like you are both 0 for 2 in recent weeks in your misinformation campaign. We have debunked your assertions that Sabin was against vaccination and that Greenberg stated that the Salk polio vaccine was "ineffective and dangerous". So, I would like both of you to acknowledge this fact here on these newsgroups and john, you need to remove those false statements from your web site. Also, each of you give me 50 push-ups, if you can. Thank you |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
"Vaccine-man" wrote in message ... Dear john and yuri, It looks like you are both 0 for 2 in recent weeks in your misinformation campaign. We have debunked your assertions that Sabin was against vaccination and that Greenberg stated that the Salk polio vaccine was "ineffective and dangerous". So, I would like both of you to acknowledge this fact here on these newsgroups and john, you need to remove those false statements from your web site. Also, each of you give me 50 push-ups, if you can. Thank you sure, if you can find where on my website sabin and greenberg say that, as I can't find it eg greenberg http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
On Dec 19, 10:07 am, "JOHN" wrote:
sure, if you can find where on my website sabin and greenberg say that, as I can't find it eg greenberghttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html Lines 7 and 8. Thanks for correcting that, and don't forget the push- ups! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
On Dec 19, 9:45 am, Vaccine-man wrote:
Dear john and yuri, It looks like you are both 0 for 2 in recent weeks in your misinformation campaign. We have debunked your assertions that Sabin was against vaccination and that Greenberg stated that the Salk polio vaccine was "ineffective and dangerous". So, I would like both of you to acknowledge this fact here on these newsgroups and john, you need to remove those false statements from your web site. Also, each of you give me 50 push-ups, if you can. You should have prefaced that comment with "You are disorganized, grab- asstic pieces of amphibian ****!" After all, they are child-hating, anti-vac liars. Thank you |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
"JOHN" wrote in message ... "Vaccine-man" wrote in message ... Dear john and yuri, It looks like you are both 0 for 2 in recent weeks in your misinformation campaign. We have debunked your assertions that Sabin was against vaccination and that Greenberg stated that the Salk polio vaccine was "ineffective and dangerous". So, I would like both of you to acknowledge this fact here on these newsgroups and john, you need to remove those false statements from your web site. Also, each of you give me 50 push-ups, if you can. Thank you sure, if you can find where on my website sabin and greenberg say that, as I can't find it eg greenberg http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html As I wrote elsewhere, and with updating: In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2) The citation in the above quote (note 2) is to that well known medical authority: "J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale Books Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962). " It is so well known and respected that my local public library has taken the 1976 edition (apparently the latest one offered) off their shelves as being "out of date." Dr. Herbert Ratner did chair a panel discussion at the May 1960 meetings of the IMS. The panel consisted of Dr. Herald Cox, the aforementioned Dr. Greenberg, and Dr. Herman Kleinman. Of these, only Ratner and Kleinman were MDs; Cox was Sc.D, and Greenberg, like me, a Ph.D. The proceedings (edited from a transcript) were printed the August and September issues of the Illinois Medical Journal (IMJ). Funny how only the August issue ever gets mentioned on the web. Yesterday [Saturday, Dec. 15, 2007] I read those two articles at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) over in Newark. Unfortunately, their copier was down, so I could not make copies; but I did take notes. Then I tried to track down the oft-cited HR 10541 at Seton Hall Law School Rodino Library. But their Congressional Serial Set only goes back to the 1970s. They sent me to the Newark Public Library, which has many Congressional resources, but not this one. But the NPL did give me the correct citation: not HR 10541, but "Intensive Immunization Programs", and "Y4in8/4:Im6." [don't ask me what that code means.] So, via Lexus-Nexus, I found that Rutgers Gov Pubs has both a microfiche and a hardcopy. Interestingly, reading the Nexus-Lexus catalog copy, I noticed that while the list of witnesses at the HR 10541 hearings included about 10 people, it did *not* list Dr. Greenberg. I went down to Rutgers this morning [Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007] and read an original hard copy of the HR 10541 hearings. Fortunately their copiers were working. First conclusion, intimated by the above "witness list": despite numerous citations [including the quote from Rodale] that he did, Dr. Greenberg did not, and I emphasize *did not*, "testify at Congressional hearings" on HR 10541. Rather, almost the entire text of the IMJ transcripts were reprinted as pages 90-109 of the Hearing of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on "Intensive Immunization Programs." Note: the above referenced URL: "eg greenberg http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html" is a link to the paragraph: ] Bernard Greenberg (late Dean -- School of Public Health, University of N. ] Carolina) who -- during the polio epidemics of the 50's -- chaired the ] Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health ] Association, submitted testimony to the Congressional Hearings on polio ] vaccines (HR0541, 1962). " Here the active "testified" is changed to the passive "submitted testimony." But this is doubly erroneous. First of all, this was not "testimony," which implies statements given under oath: there were no oaths involved in the 1960 panel discussion. Then, Greenberg himself did not submit the "testimony," someone else did. Note also that the number of the bill is in error. The above URL, http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html itself includes a link to its source, http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/6/vaccine.htm {Note: that particular page is difficult to access. I got through it once, avoiding giving my email. YMMV} In the full article, "Universal Childhood Immunization," following the above paragraph, the next paragraph reverts to the active voice, "It is of further interest that Dr. Greenberg testified ..." But again, he did *not* "testify." And, after a short -- two sentence -- paragraph, comes this: "A distinguished interdisciplinary medical panel moderated at the 120th Annual meeting of the Illinois State medicial society ... B. Greenberg *contributed* the following observation..." That 120th Annual Meeting was the 1960 panel discussion whose transcript was attached to the House record on HR 10541 in 1962. But here Greenberg's comments are not "testimony" but merely a "contribution." Of course, there are no citations in the mercola.com "newsletter", so unless one knew that the "testimony" and "contibution" refered to the same original 1960 panel text, one might be mislead into thinking that they were separate documents. Good scholarship, eh. HR 10541 was passed (after House amendments {to exclude Christian Scientists who objected on reliogious grounds}, and with no Senate hearings) as the Vaccination Assistance Act of 1962, US Statutes at Large 76:1155. In the following discussion, page number citations will refer to the 1962 Congressional reprint of the 1960 IMS panel discussion. {Aside: there are a few web cites to HR 10541 pages 110 and above. These are to the reprint of an article from the Chicago Sunday Times magazine of Mar. 5, 1961 [another highly respected medical source ;-)], by Joan Beck, entitled "The Truth About the Polio Vaccines: Do Salk Shots Really Prevent Polio." It consists largely of direct quotes from the 1960 IMS panel.} Apparently the above cite from the 1962 Rodale Encyclopedia article (if it is correct) is the earliest source of the claim that Greenberg testified on HR 10541. I can trace Web citations back to about 1996, but since many Web sources liberally grab from each other, the trail of citations is unclear. But to now the crux of the matter: at the 1960 panel discussion, reprinted in 1962, Dr. Greenberg did say, "My primary concern, my only concern, is the very misleading way that most of this data has been handled from a statistical point of view" (1962:94), and he did use the word "manipulated" once, ["A scientific examination of the data, and the manner in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly over rated" (1962:95)]. That is, Greenberg *did* call into question the effectiveness of the vaccine (Rodale's above "ineffectiveness"), but that was only because the statistical methods of analysis were faulty, not because he thought the vaccine was faulty. In my reading of the text, neither Greenberg personally, or the panel as a whole, concluded that the "vaccine [was] a frank and ineptly disguised fraud" or that "data had been manipulated to hide the dangers." Neither the words "fraud," "hide," nor "dangers" occur in the transcript. Indeed, Dr. Greenberg's final comment on the matter (and remember he was speaking as a statistician, not as an MD): "I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is. Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, saying, "Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By being more cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too slowly. And that's what I am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are making this mistake possible. The issue must be pursued." (1962:103) Conclusions: As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical establishment' conspiracy [single quotes enclose my terms] Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.' Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 were "*improved* methods of diagnosis" (1962:97) [my emphasis]. Again, Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine as being unknown because of the statistical problems, but not of vaccines in general. Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus vaccine (more effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio infection was oral). Ultimately, the way the 1960 panel discussion is being presented today is probably even more misleading than the way the 1955-59 statistics were then. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics; and then there's the Web. Thomas W. Kavanagh, Ph.D. Seton Hall University |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
In message , The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
You should have prefaced that comment with "You are disorganized, grab- asstic pieces of amphibian ****!" On behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Insults to Fecal Matter ... -- | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
"The One True Zhen Jue" wrote in message ... You should have prefaced that comment with "You are disorganized, grab- asstic pieces of amphibian ****!" After all, they are child-hating, anti-vac liars. Vax zealots, don't you just love the mind set "At the main hospital in Mbarara during that month of 1977 more than 600 children had died following polio vaccination. 600 children ! ----Kihura Nkuba (Nov 2002) http://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html [1921] There are no adequate statistics showing these fatalities, but it may be estimated that in England and Wales no fewer than 6,000 Infants are Killed every Year by Vaccination. This is perhaps the least part of the damage. The Great Damage is that caused to Teeth, Eyesight and Constitution, by the illness of vaccinia forced upon the infant at the most critical and delicate period of its life. [1921] Vaccination and the State By Arnold Lupton MP. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/antivacc...ue_quotes.html [1880] That since Vaccination has been rendered obligatory, infantile syphilis (under one year old) has been increased in England, according to a Parliamentary return, dated February 25th, 1880, from 472 per million of births in 1847, to 1,736 per million in 1877, or fourfold; and that other inoculable diseases, such as pyaemia, scrofula, erysipelas, and bronchitis, were also augmented in infants. In England, the increase of inoculable diseases was 20 per cent., notwithstanding an expenditure of 200 millions sterling since 1850 in sanitary works. Another Parliamentary return (No. 443, Session 1877) demonstrates that 25,000 babies are yearly sacrificed by diseases excited by Vaccination. International Anti-Vaccination League points against vaccination 1880 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
There are two major problems with your post.
1. John and the other antivac wacks do not accept logic and rationale. They are both illogical and irrational to them. 2. By the time they get to the third paragraph, they've already forgotten what was in the first paragraph. Thus, it is essential that you keep your rebuttals to two paragraphs or less. Thank you. (ps - nice work) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
Vaccine-man wrote:
There are two major problems with your post. 1. John and the other antivac wacks do not accept logic and rationale. They are both illogical and irrational to them. 2. By the time they get to the third paragraph, they've already forgotten what was in the first paragraph. Thus, it is essential that you keep your rebuttals to two paragraphs or less. I've often wondered about the "Goldfish Phenomenon" exhibited by quackery supporters, where they are told something but forget it within a very short space of time. There's a PhD or two in there. Thank you. (ps - nice work) -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dear john and yuri
"Vaccine-man" wrote in message ... Dear john and yuri, It looks like you are both 0 for 2 in recent weeks in your misinformation campaign. We have debunked your assertions that Sabin was against vaccination I never said that "Sabin was against vaccination". You have debunked nothing. and that Greenberg stated that the Salk polio vaccine was "ineffective and dangerous". I never said this. So, I would like both of you to acknowledge this fact here on these newsgroups and john, you need to remove those false statements from your web site. Also, each of you give me 50 push-ups, if you can. Obviously "Vaccine-man" must be talking about some other "yuri" who might be guilty of these things... Hallucinations? Yuri. "My own personal view is that vaccines are unsafe and worthless... I no longer believe that vaccines have any role to play in the protection of the community or the individual. -- Dr Vernon Coleman MB http://www.vernoncoleman.com/vaccines.htm |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Wolf aka Bible John heard loud and clear on national radio! | Jason Gastrich | Solutions | 1 | July 27th 05 11:39 PM |
Attention all Bible John aka John Wolf haters! | Jason Gastrich | Solutions | 0 | July 2nd 05 12:00 AM |
The criminal JOhn Gagon has just become a Kathleen. His latest post reads just like her paranoid schizophrenic posts..welcome to the club of psychotics John Gagon aka Hylander aka shane aka Lord Alfred Henry troll King of alt. support. autism | Xi Chen | General | 1 | June 9th 05 12:51 PM |
Dear Prudence | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | October 18th 04 04:50 AM |
Dear Abbey, for KIDS is " Dear Diana" | Ruth Luce | Solutions | 0 | September 6th 03 04:43 PM |