My little boy



On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:12:29 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Diversion noted.



Look at how manipulative and dishonest Anth is here. He accuses me of
diversion while completely snipping what he claims is a diversion.
This of course completely prevents me from answering his accusation.
It is amazing how Anth and Jan use the very same tactics in
discussions. Sad that.

Aloha,


Rich

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 

>> Watch how Anth completely evades DIRECT responses to these questions
>> and instead makes a strawman argument or diversion.
>>


And then on cue Anth totally ignores the questions and creates a
strawman argument/diversion:


On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:19:29 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>All papers don't go to pubmed + you seem to be obsessed with the word
>strawman - have you got strawman wallpaper or something?
>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:36:30 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Not really - there's thousands of papers out there that don't get onto
>> >pubmed.

>>
>> How do you determine which information that you read to trust as the
>> truth?? Do you assume that the PubMed published articles are not the
>> truth and that all the unpublished papers that support your rigidly
>> held antivac opinions ARE the truth?? How do you know that what they
>> tell you on the antivac websites is the truth?? What is your criteria
>> for separating facts from fiction??
>>
>> Watch how Anth completely evades DIRECT responses to these questions
>> and instead makes a strawman argument or diversion.



Some things are so predictable.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:21:20 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If I showed you the exact site you would still assert vaccines are safe


Strawman argument. I never said vaccines were completely safe. I said
they were safe enough given the benefits to continue them. And I stand
by that statement.


> so
>what's the point me going back to the bbc searching for the article I read
>and then posting it?


So you can support your assertion and that others can see how credible
the evidence is. Again I ask how you determine what to believe and
what you don't believe when you read something. Watch again Anth evade
the question.

Aloha,

Rich


>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:48:25 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:34:01 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> Are you aware that they are not taking steps to ensure that there is
>> >> no contamination in the vaccines??
>> >
>> >Yes I am, in Europe there's guidelines and they are not being adheared

>to.
>>
>> Do you live in Europe?? How do you know that the guidelines are not
>> being adhered to?? I would suggest that you not assume that all
>> information from whacko antivac sites is true.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> Rich
>> >
>> >> If so please give us objective
>> >> evidence that there are not quality controls to reduce the risk of
>> >> contamination. They will never reduce contamination to 0%
>> >
>> >Anth
>> >

>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The best defense to logic is ignorance.

>


------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
Rich you are not concerned with the safety of vaccines, you are concerned
with name calling and mocking.
Anth

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
 
Diversion noted again.
Anth

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:12:29 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Diversion noted.

>
>
> Look at how manipulative and dishonest Anth is here. He accuses me of
> diversion while completely snipping what he claims is a diversion.
> This of course completely prevents me from answering his accusation.
> It is amazing how Anth and Jan use the very same tactics in
> discussions. Sad that.
>
> Aloha,
>
>
> Rich
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
Like yourself.
Anth

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >> Watch how Anth completely evades DIRECT responses to these questions
> >> and instead makes a strawman argument or diversion.
> >>

>
> And then on cue Anth totally ignores the questions and creates a
> strawman argument/diversion:
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:19:29 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >All papers don't go to pubmed + you seem to be obsessed with the word
> >strawman - have you got strawman wallpaper or something?
> >Anth
> >
> >"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:36:30 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not really - there's thousands of papers out there that don't get onto
> >> >pubmed.
> >>
> >> How do you determine which information that you read to trust as the
> >> truth?? Do you assume that the PubMed published articles are not the
> >> truth and that all the unpublished papers that support your rigidly
> >> held antivac opinions ARE the truth?? How do you know that what they
> >> tell you on the antivac websites is the truth?? What is your criteria
> >> for separating facts from fiction??
> >>
> >> Watch how Anth completely evades DIRECT responses to these questions
> >> and instead makes a strawman argument or diversion.

>
>
> Some things are so predictable.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
> ------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:29:54 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rich you are not concerned with the safety of vaccines, you are concerned
>with name calling and mocking.


Strawman argument.

Aloha,

Rich


>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>


------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:30:17 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Diversion noted again.


Anth accuses me of diversion without posting anything that I said. I
accuse Anth of being manipulative for not identifying the diversion
and he accuses me of diversion again.

Anth must have went to the Jan Drew school of discussion.

Aloha,

Rich


>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:12:29 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Diversion noted.

>>
>>
>> Look at how manipulative and dishonest Anth is here. He accuses me of
>> diversion while completely snipping what he claims is a diversion.
>> This of course completely prevents me from answering his accusation.
>> It is amazing how Anth and Jan use the very same tactics in
>> discussions. Sad that.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The best defense to logic is ignorance.

>


------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
>I've not seen any children dieing from polio vaccines recently, but I
>suspect that this will happen in foreign countries who can't afford the
>correct vaccines.
>Anth


Anth, that says it all, doesn't it? "I've not seen any children..." You
anti-vac morons are such selfish assholes. _YOU_ and _YOUR_ beliefs, _YOU_ and
YOUR_ experiences are the only thing you are concerned with....until _YOUR_ ox
gets gored.

The skeptics _KNOW_ what is going on the world outside of their own
self-interest. They have Perspective & a sense of responsibility, in constrast
to the childish whims of scientifically illiterate anti-vac whackos.

Stop the polio vaccine and you condemn children and adults to morbidity and
premature death. Of course, why should you give a **** if YOU haven't
personally seen a child in an iron lung?

>
>"Ilsa9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Because people on here are stupid basically - they try to tell me that a
>> >vaccine which has potential for large unknowns is 'safe.'
>> >This rings alarm bells in my head, as it would anyone with any sense.
>> >Anth

>>
>> Well, stay away from aspirin. That stuff has a very narrow therapuetic

>window.
>> While you are at it, stay away from peanuts, too. They range from tasty

>to
>> deadly, which is certainly a "potential for large unknowns".
>>
>> Anth, you know vaccines are very widely studied as to efficacy and adverse
>> reaction. When was the most recent time you heard of a child dying from
>> vaccines? When was the most recent time _WE_ heard of children dying from
>> vaccine preventable diseases?
 
Rich still asserts that Vaccines are safe.
..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2097201.stm

Twenty-six of the 95 licensed vaccines in the UK do not comply with existing
regulations, but have been assessed to be safe by experts.
There you go - how can they be safe when there's no assurance that there's
no contaminants in them?

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The best defense to logic is ignorance.


'Seems to be the way you work'.
Anth
 
"Ilsa9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I've not seen any children dieing from polio vaccines recently, but I
> >suspect that this will happen in foreign countries who can't afford the
> >correct vaccines.
> >Anth

>
> Anth, that says it all, doesn't it? "I've not seen any children..." You
> anti-vac morons are such selfish assholes. _YOU_ and _YOUR_ beliefs,

_YOU_ and
> YOUR_ experiences are the only thing you are concerned with....until

_YOUR_ ox
> gets gored.


Yes it does say it all... cheap vaccines for the poor with more risk.

> The skeptics _KNOW_ what is going on the world outside of their own
> self-interest. They have Perspective & a sense of responsibility, in

constrast
> to the childish whims of scientifically illiterate anti-vac whackos.


> Stop the polio vaccine and you condemn children and adults to morbidity

and
> premature death. Of course, why should you give a **** if YOU haven't
> personally seen a child in an iron lung?
>


Personally I don't give a **** about you or your views, but I do give a ****
about other people.
Anth
 
"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:21:20 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >If I showed you the exact site you would still assert vaccines are safe

>
> Strawman argument. I never said vaccines were completely safe. I said
> they were safe enough given the benefits to continue them. And I stand
> by that statement.
> > so
> >what's the point me going back to the bbc searching for the article I

read
> >and then posting it?

>
> So you can support your assertion and that others can see how credible
> the evidence is. Again I ask how you determine what to believe and
> what you don't believe when you read something. Watch again Anth evade
> the question.


Why should I support my assertions all the time when you do nothing to
support yours?

> Aloha,
>
> Rich
 
On 09 Nov 2003 17:34:13 GMT, [email protected]ampXray (Ilsa9) wrote:

>>I've not seen any children dieing from polio vaccines recently, but I
>>suspect that this will happen in foreign countries who can't afford the
>>correct vaccines.
>>Anth

>
>Anth, that says it all, doesn't it? "I've not seen any children..." You
>anti-vac morons are such selfish assholes. _YOU_ and _YOUR_ beliefs, _YOU_ and
>YOUR_ experiences are the only thing you are concerned with....until _YOUR_ ox
>gets gored.
>
>The skeptics _KNOW_ what is going on the world outside of their own
>self-interest. They have Perspective & a sense of responsibility, in constrast
>to the childish whims of scientifically illiterate anti-vac whackos.
>
>Stop the polio vaccine and you condemn children and adults to morbidity and
>premature death. Of course, why should you give a **** if YOU haven't
>personally seen a child in an iron lung?



Anth did not even know that the polio virus was still around. Just
look at the beginning of this discussion:

Anth says:
>>> >I live in a society where polio is all but stamped out.

Rich says:
>> > >> What do you think would happen if everyone in your society stopped
>> > >> vaccinating their children?? Do you think that would increase,
>> > >> decrease or cause no change in rate of polio infection over the next
>> > >> year, decade, etc?? Please explain your answer.

Anth says:
>> > >I have no idea - is the virus wiped out?


This gives you an idea of how clueless Anth is about polio. Until
recently he did not even know the virus is still alive and well and
causing death and paralysis. (note: I realize that viruses are not
really alive, the use of alive and well was an expression in case Anth
was thinking about using THAT strawman argument).

And note that Anth has STILL not answered the question of what he
thinks would happen if his society stopped vaccinating and were
exposed to polio from someone infected entering the country from a
polio endemic country.

When I originally asked the question Anth said he could not answer
because he did not know if the virus has been wiped out. Now Anth
knows that the virus is NOT wiped out. But Anth STILL won't answer the
question. Instead Anth lies, makes strawman arguments and diversions
and accuses me of doing the very things that he is doing. Just watch.

Now Anth may snip my entire discussion and accuse me of diversion.
Pot, kettle, black. Anth is so dishonest that he won't even identify
what he is accusing me of so I could answer it. Sound like someone
else in this newsgroup.


Aloha,

Rich


------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
>Please do laugh - I will enjoy my good health.
>Anth


Obviously, you aren't refering to your _Mental_ health.

>
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
 
>I'm not a liar Rich.
>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...


Anth, you may not outright fabricate something out of whole cloth, but you are
amongst the most intellectually dishonest people I've met, online or otherwise.
 
>> No, Anth. YOU lie. You selectively use statistics to support your
>> preconceived notion while ignoring statistics that refute your
>> preconceived notion. That is dishonest.

>
>That is so funny Rich - YOU lie by calling me a liar and you pick at stupid
>trivial points which are designed at discrediting the person..
>
>Banana's cure cancer - 100% of people who eat bananas and have complete
>spontaneous remissions in their cancers eat bananas.
>That's how the Polio argument goes.


Anth, you are looking only at deaths from polio. After the introduction of the
iron lung, EEEEEeeeevil Organized medicine was able to keep polio victims alive
longer.

Check the infection rate as well as mortality. The mortality did decline due
to the iron lung, but not because the polio disappeared.
 
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:33:33 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> The reduction of new cases of polio to
>>essentially ZERO cannot be coincidence or normal variance, and can only be
>>attributed to the effectiveness of polio vaccination. Why are you stubbornly
>>resisting this obvious fact?

>
>Because he is a liar. Anth clearly stated that he thought that the
>polio vaccine was effective but not safe. Now Anth is suggesting that
>the vaccine is not even effective saying that polio was on the decline
>anyway. Anth's dishonesty is obvious.
>
>What is not clear is what is motivating Anth to be dishonest. In Jan
>Drew's case the motivation is clear. Jan is really ****** at
>conventional medicine for not indulging her somatic hypervigilance and
>is motivated to demonize CM at every opportunity even if it means that
>she must lie to do this. Demonization is first priority with honesty
>taking a back seat.


Anth is angry with medical science in general because of what happened to one
or both parents. IIRC, he may have a valid complaint about one parent getting
an infection in the hospital and that pain meds were not properly administered.
If so, he certainly has a reason to be upset with, and perhaps file a lawsuit
against, the hospital in question.

However, Anth is willing to demonize the entire healthcare profession. He is
now finding fault with things that occured long before his parent's illness.
Because he and his family have had some disappointments with mainstream
medicine, he feels that it is, was, and shall always be a scam.

I'm glad I'm not such a closed minded, petty, self-absorbed reprobate.
 
"Rich" <,@.> snipped and *****ed in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 09 Nov 2003 17:34:13 GMT, [email protected]ampXray (Ilsa9) wrote:


> Anth did not even know that the polio virus was still around. Just
> look at the beginning of this discussion:
>
> Anth says:
> >>> >I live in a society where polio is all but stamped out.

> Rich says:
> >> > >> What do you think would happen if everyone in your society stopped
> >> > >> vaccinating their children?? Do you think that would increase,
> >> > >> decrease or cause no change in rate of polio infection over the

next
> >> > >> year, decade, etc?? Please explain your answer.

> Anth says:
> >> > >I have no idea - is the virus wiped out?


By snipping and joining there Rich you have made yourself look pretty stupid
imo.
If the virus was wiped out then why would we be having this discussion, kind
of blows your statement out of the water?

> This gives you an idea of how clueless Anth is about polio. Until
> recently he did not even know the virus is still alive and well and
> causing death and paralysis.


Another lie <see above and all the stats I posted on polio incidence>
Here http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-eng.html

> (note: I realize that viruses are not
> really alive, the use of alive and well was an expression in case Anth
> was thinking about using THAT strawman argument).


> And note that Anth has STILL not answered the question of what he
> thinks would happen if his society stopped vaccinating and were
> exposed to polio from someone infected entering the country from a
> polio endemic country.


(or indeed another person who had recieved the vaccine)

How could I answer that Rich when I don't know ?
Rich seems to believe that mass vaccination is the only way to tackle polio.
I showed how selective vaccination had been used to tackle smallpox.

> When I originally asked the question Anth said he could not answer
> because he did not know if the virus has been wiped out. Now Anth
> knows that the virus is NOT wiped out. But Anth STILL won't answer the
> question. Instead Anth lies, makes strawman arguments and diversions
> and accuses me of doing the very things that he is doing. Just watch.


Untrue - see above.

> Now Anth may snip my entire discussion and accuse me of diversion.
> Pot, kettle, black. Anth is so dishonest that he won't even identify
> what he is accusing me of so I could answer it. Sound like someone
> else in this newsgroup.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
> The best defense to logic is ignorance.


N.B. You are ignorance.
 
"Ilsa9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I'm not a liar Rich.
> >Anth
> >
> >"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...

>
> Anth, you may not outright fabricate something out of whole cloth, but you

are
> amongst the most intellectually dishonest people I've met, online or

otherwise.

Why?
Anth
 
>I've told you repeatedly NOT to call me a liar you troll.
>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...


We have repeatedly asked you to tell the truth, you troll.