Re: Anyone care to respond to this 'biologist' that keeps posting to my blog concerning vaccines?

July 9, 2008

Hi Alison,

People like him truly are not worth an ounce of time. Are you able

to remove his post from your blog? I am not familiar with

myspace...I have found that people like these " biologists " are

actually contracted by the drug companies to seek out negative info

on vaccines and " attack " with their so-called vast knowledge. We all

know that the studies that he cited are all flawed in one way or

another. I've come under attack when I've responded to news articles

(in different states) - I had the same person attacking me!!

Apparently, he too was responding to all of the same articles that I

was and he was supposedly a " pro-vaccine " doctor. Keep up the great

work though on getting the word out....Wall Street recently reported

Merck's loss on the Gardasil vaccine!! ! Whatever we are all

doing is finally working!!

I don't care what people say about the Green our Vaccines Rally (some

people strongly opposed to it) - McCarthy had a method to her

madness and recent polls are showing the fast decline in parents

vaccinating since that rally!!

Dawn

>

> This latest reply was directed at Jim O'...

>

> This person is obviously trying to be very condescending... Not

quite sure why my blog even stood out for these people to comment

on...

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Biologist has left a new comment on your post " Jim Carrey and

McCarthy Place " Green Vaccine... " :

>

> Dear Jim,

> I first read your post and I thought you were being facetious and

had a very strong laugh: I then realized you were serious and am left

really quite puzzled how opinions like yours even exist.

Unfortunately Jim, in the realm of science, opinions have no weight,

and you either have evidence to back up what you're stating or you

don't and you lose all credibility (and your funding). I'd love to

take your money off your hands, but you are neither a reasonable nor

a credible man and I don't need your money; although I have met your

challenge (Below).

> Jim, scientists have been testing your very " challenge " for nearly

300 years now and demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccinations.

Jenner (1798), the founder of modern immunology, first tested

his hypothesis by inoculating an 8 year old boy with cowpox then

exposed him to the virulent strain of smallpox (surprise, the boy

lived!). Pasteur also worked on this very question by inoculating

chickens with an attenuated strain of cholera, and sheep with

bacillus anthracis (anthrax) (he then injected them to the lethal

strain). In both cases, all the vaccinated animals lived, all those

who were not died. How else did these animals survive, Jim? Miracle?

Jim, if vaccines aren't effective, how did Jenner and Pasteur dream

up the pattern that immunization as a defence against diseases? Why

would anyone buy their " double edged false reasoning " if it didn't

work? Surely this old archaic view would have been replaced by now?

> Furthermore Jim, 17 Nobel prizes have been awarded for

immunological research that piece together how the immune system

functions and subsequently the means by which vaccination work from a

macro to molecular levels. Regrettably Jim, I'm not going to spoon

feed you immunology to give you the background; you'll have to do

that yourself. I suggest picking up a copy of Kuby immunology. We

have quite a strong understanding of how infection and immunological

responses occur. In fact! We can determine quite well the

immunological response to inoculation using a variety of molecular

techniques. These range from QPCR to Floruresent in situ

hybridization of titers as well as a range of other techniques.

> Of course, Jim, the scientific community hasn't just taken Mr.

Jenner and Pasteur's word for it. Administration of clinical trials

still exists today, even on vaccines that have been proven effective

(some are described below: keep reading). The US food and drug

administration REQUIRES that all drugs released onto the market go

through a series of evaluations to determine their effectiveness as

well as adverse side affects (vaccines are certainly no different).

Before the FDA even considers a vaccination for trials it first has

to pass a battery of animal testing (similar in means to the

Pasteur's originals) as well as in vitro cellular histology (far more

technical and involve the techniques that listed above as well as

many others). This even applies for the components of the vaccines

that you suggest are toxic.

> http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/vacappr.htm

>

> Of course, I hope you understand that it is not only dangerous, but

unethical to inoculate a human then purposefully inject a virulent

virus into their body as a means of primary assessment of a vaccine's

effectiveness; so Jenner's original experiment will have to do if

you're looking for direct exposure in humans. Otherwise there is a

huge supply of animal and non-invasive clinical trials that provide

the information that you desire.

>

> Here is SMALL number of studies that have addressed your question.

I presume Jim, that you're a grown adult and I will only bother

describing a few of the studies. The rest you'll have to do on your

own by reading the abstracts.

>

> One of the most recent, of the studies examines HPV-16 vaccination

effectiveness. Koutsky, et al. 2006. They collected a series of

patients and ran a double blind experiment. Some patients were given

a placebo, while other groups were given various levels of

inoculation ranging within the FDA's guidelines.

> " There were no cases of HPV-16-related CIN diagnosed among the per-

protocol vaccinated women compared with 14 cases of HPV-16-related

CIN 1 and 12 of CIN 2 or worse among women in the placebo group. In

the 834 MITT-1 patients who received at least one dose of the

vaccine, none developed HPV-16-related CIN compared with 20 women

with HPV-16-related CIN 1 and 17 with CIN 2 in the placebo-treated

women. "

> Jim, what this means is the group that received the full

vaccination did not test positive for the HPV-16 DNA from the virus

(100% effective). Four in the placebo group did test positive, and

thus had been infected. Is this just because of chance? Hmm. could

be, but it also is correlated to the levels of higher anti-HPV-16

titers (antibodies) present in blood samples.

> http://www.obgynsurvey.com/pt/re/obgynsurv/abstract.00006254-

200605000-

00015.htm;jsessionid=LyfBK5h1TB4TvpCyByvpTG0qvwkfp5MQvTnXBybkG5mH2C8hw

JYx!447927974!181195628!8091!-1

>

> Da Ville, 2000 examined the outbreak of hepatitis B infections

throughout his home country of Italy. He outlines the rationale for

their vaccination program and its success at lowering mortality

related to HiB infection. Within a decade of compliant inoculation of

95% for newborns and 80% for adolescents has led to the drop in HiB

infection from 3.4% in 1985 to 0.9% in 1996. Coincidence, I guess so?

> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL & _udi=B6TD4-

3YKKB1Y-

C & _user=10 & _rdoc=1 & _fmt= & _orig=search & _sort=d & view=c & _acct=C000050221 &

_version=1 & _urlVersion=0 & _userid=10 & md5=62607907c0f8367c5a042831997934

a7

> Development and phase 1 clinical testing of a conjugate vaccine

against meningococcus A and C.

> The specimens survived exposure to virulent strains after

inoculation. Assessment of phase one clinical trials showed no higher

adverse reaction to the vaccine than the placebo and showed an

increased level of antibodies to group A and C meningococcal capsular

polysaccharides after the first dose.

> Care to explain Jim, why the patients have antibodies for

meningococcal polysaccharides? Do you know what antibodies do or how

they're produced, Jim? (This is really is a question I'd like to see

you answer)

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1523880

>

> " New Mouse Model for Dengue Virus Vaccine Testing "

> I'll save you the reading. The immunized mice survived; the others,

dead. Another coincidence? I guess so.

> http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/783

>

> Many countries monitor and record outbreaks so it is easy to

correlate between the vaccinations and infection. One recent review

of the US health system by Orenstein and his colleagues mandates the

effectiveness of vaccines by comparing 20th century mortality prior

vaccination and post vaccination. Considering the percentile decrease

in the vaccinated diseases it is clear, Jim, that even aside from all

the clinical trials, there is no other means of describing how the

mortality rate can decline so rapidly. I'm sure you'd agree that the

United States is a diverse country and varying health concerns

throughout the country. How would YOU describe their first figure?

> http://healthaff.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/599

>

> Other screening methods to determine the effectiveness of

vaccinations..

> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376997

> http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/742

> http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604167251

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3879673

>

> Others.

> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/341901?cookieSet=1

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8116190

> http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/library/Pastpresfuture.pdf

>

> To close Jim, it is clear that you have a strong " opinion " of

vaccination policies. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to

support your claims. As a result, you have no voice in the scientific

community and you're viewed as a non-educated delinquent (that's just

reality). If you'd like to have a voice one day, I'd suggest that you

join the ranks of objective researchers and woo us with your research

findings.

> Finally Jim, I don't care what you do for your children when it

comes time for vaccinations. If you refuse vaccinations for them I

hope that there is not another epidemic, or they may be part of the

unlucky few that suffer.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Biologist

>

July 9, 2008

WOW, he responded to my comments on your blog with quotes from posts

I've made to this and one other vaccine education list. What a

strange response... calling me poor? Huh? Here's his response to me

that I copied from your blog:

Hi ,

Is this your posting:

no-forced-vaccination/message/1411

" after I cool down and formulate my thoughts... I urge everyone to bombard him! "

and

" Damn straight I educate my neighbors! " ?

You appear to have misdirected anger. To answer your question above:

no you are not an idiot. You're just poor and your 'elected'

governments did this to you from the 1970s onwards. Is it fair that

the richest country in the world denies poor people healthcare? We

have free healthcare; would you and your neighbours like free

healthcare too?

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Dawn <dawndanc@...> wrote:

> Hi Alison,

>

> People like him truly are not worth an ounce of time. Are you able

> to remove his post from your blog? I am not familiar with

> myspace...I have found that people like these " biologists " are

> actually contracted by the drug companies to seek out negative info

> on vaccines and " attack " with their so-called vast knowledge. We all

> know that the studies that he cited are all flawed in one way or

> another. I've come under attack when I've responded to news articles

> (in different states) - I had the same person attacking me!!

> Apparently, he too was responding to all of the same articles that I

> was and he was supposedly a " pro-vaccine " doctor. Keep up the great

> work though on getting the word out....Wall Street recently reported

> Merck's loss on the Gardasil vaccine!! ! Whatever we are all

> doing is finally working!!

>

> I don't care what people say about the Green our Vaccines Rally (some

> people strongly opposed to it) - McCarthy had a method to her

> madness and recent polls are showing the fast decline in parents

> vaccinating since that rally!!

>

> Dawn

>

>>

>> This latest reply was directed at Jim O'...

>>

>> This person is obviously trying to be very condescending... Not

> quite sure why my blog even stood out for these people to comment

> on...

>>

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>

>> Biologist has left a new comment on your post " Jim Carrey and

> McCarthy Place " Green Vaccine... " :

>>

>> Dear Jim,

>> I first read your post and I thought you were being facetious and

> had a very strong laugh: I then realized you were serious and am left

> really quite puzzled how opinions like yours even exist.

> Unfortunately Jim, in the realm of science, opinions have no weight,

> and you either have evidence to back up what you're stating or you

> don't and you lose all credibility (and your funding). I'd love to

> take your money off your hands, but you are neither a reasonable nor

> a credible man and I don't need your money; although I have met your

> challenge (Below).

>> Jim, scientists have been testing your very " challenge " for nearly

> 300 years now and demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccinations.

> Jenner (1798), the founder of modern immunology, first tested

> his hypothesis by inoculating an 8 year old boy with cowpox then

> exposed him to the virulent strain of smallpox (surprise, the boy

> lived!). Pasteur also worked on this very question by inoculating

> chickens with an attenuated strain of cholera, and sheep with

> bacillus anthracis (anthrax) (he then injected them to the lethal

> strain). In both cases, all the vaccinated animals lived, all those

> who were not died. How else did these animals survive, Jim? Miracle?

> Jim, if vaccines aren't effective, how did Jenner and Pasteur dream

> up the pattern that immunization as a defence against diseases? Why

> would anyone buy their " double edged false reasoning " if it didn't

> work? Surely this old archaic view would have been replaced by now?

>> Furthermore Jim, 17 Nobel prizes have been awarded for

> immunological research that piece together how the immune system

> functions and subsequently the means by which vaccination work from a

> macro to molecular levels. Regrettably Jim, I'm not going to spoon

> feed you immunology to give you the background; you'll have to do

> that yourself. I suggest picking up a copy of Kuby immunology. We

> have quite a strong understanding of how infection and immunological

> responses occur. In fact! We can determine quite well the

> immunological response to inoculation using a variety of molecular

> techniques. These range from QPCR to Floruresent in situ

> hybridization of titers as well as a range of other techniques.

>> Of course, Jim, the scientific community hasn't just taken Mr.

> Jenner and Pasteur's word for it. Administration of clinical trials

> still exists today, even on vaccines that have been proven effective

> (some are described below: keep reading). The US food and drug

> administration REQUIRES that all drugs released onto the market go

> through a series of evaluations to determine their effectiveness as

> well as adverse side affects (vaccines are certainly no different).

> Before the FDA even considers a vaccination for trials it first has

> to pass a battery of animal testing (similar in means to the

> Pasteur's originals) as well as in vitro cellular histology (far more

> technical and involve the techniques that listed above as well as

> many others). This even applies for the components of the vaccines

> that you suggest are toxic.

>> http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/vacappr.htm

>>

>> Of course, I hope you understand that it is not only dangerous, but

> unethical to inoculate a human then purposefully inject a virulent

> virus into their body as a means of primary assessment of a vaccine's

> effectiveness; so Jenner's original experiment will have to do if

> you're looking for direct exposure in humans. Otherwise there is a

> huge supply of animal and non-invasive clinical trials that provide

> the information that you desire.

>>

>> Here is SMALL number of studies that have addressed your question.

> I presume Jim, that you're a grown adult and I will only bother

> describing a few of the studies. The rest you'll have to do on your

> own by reading the abstracts.

>>

>> One of the most recent, of the studies examines HPV-16 vaccination

> effectiveness. Koutsky, et al. 2006. They collected a series of

> patients and ran a double blind experiment. Some patients were given

> a placebo, while other groups were given various levels of

> inoculation ranging within the FDA's guidelines.

>> " There were no cases of HPV-16-related CIN diagnosed among the per-

> protocol vaccinated women compared with 14 cases of HPV-16-related

> CIN 1 and 12 of CIN 2 or worse among women in the placebo group. In

> the 834 MITT-1 patients who received at least one dose of the

> vaccine, none developed HPV-16-related CIN compared with 20 women

> with HPV-16-related CIN 1 and 17 with CIN 2 in the placebo-treated

> women. "

>> Jim, what this means is the group that received the full

> vaccination did not test positive for the HPV-16 DNA from the virus

> (100% effective). Four in the placebo group did test positive, and

> thus had been infected. Is this just because of chance? Hmm. could

> be, but it also is correlated to the levels of higher anti-HPV-16

> titers (antibodies) present in blood samples.

>> http://www.obgynsurvey.com/pt/re/obgynsurv/abstract.00006254-

> 200605000-

> 00015.htm;jsessionid=LyfBK5h1TB4TvpCyByvpTG0qvwkfp5MQvTnXBybkG5mH2C8hw

> JYx!447927974!181195628!8091!-1

>>

>> Da Ville, 2000 examined the outbreak of hepatitis B infections

> throughout his home country of Italy. He outlines the rationale for

> their vaccination program and its success at lowering mortality

> related to HiB infection. Within a decade of compliant inoculation of

> 95% for newborns and 80% for adolescents has led to the drop in HiB

> infection from 3.4% in 1985 to 0.9% in 1996. Coincidence, I guess so?

>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL & _udi=B6TD4-

> 3YKKB1Y-

> C & _user=10 & _rdoc=1 & _fmt= & _orig=search & _sort=d & view=c & _acct=C000050221 &

> _version=1 & _urlVersion=0 & _userid=10 & md5=62607907c0f8367c5a042831997934

> a7

>> Development and phase 1 clinical testing of a conjugate vaccine

> against meningococcus A and C.

>> The specimens survived exposure to virulent strains after

> inoculation. Assessment of phase one clinical trials showed no higher

> adverse reaction to the vaccine than the placebo and showed an

> increased level of antibodies to group A and C meningococcal capsular

> polysaccharides after the first dose.

>> Care to explain Jim, why the patients have antibodies for

> meningococcal polysaccharides? Do you know what antibodies do or how

> they're produced, Jim? (This is really is a question I'd like to see

> you answer)

>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1523880

>>

>> " New Mouse Model for Dengue Virus Vaccine Testing "

>> I'll save you the reading. The immunized mice survived; the others,

> dead. Another coincidence? I guess so.

>> http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/783

>>

>> Many countries monitor and record outbreaks so it is easy to

> correlate between the vaccinations and infection. One recent review

> of the US health system by Orenstein and his colleagues mandates the

> effectiveness of vaccines by comparing 20th century mortality prior

> vaccination and post vaccination. Considering the percentile decrease

> in the vaccinated diseases it is clear, Jim, that even aside from all

> the clinical trials, there is no other means of describing how the

> mortality rate can decline so rapidly. I'm sure you'd agree that the

> United States is a diverse country and varying health concerns

> throughout the country. How would YOU describe their first figure?

>> http://healthaff.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/599

>>

>> Other screening methods to determine the effectiveness of

> vaccinations..

>> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376997

>> http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/742

>> http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604167251

>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3879673

>>

>> Others.

>> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/341901?cookieSet=1

>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8116190

>> http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/library/Pastpresfuture.pdf

>>

>> To close Jim, it is clear that you have a strong " opinion " of

> vaccination policies. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to

> support your claims. As a result, you have no voice in the scientific

> community and you're viewed as a non-educated delinquent (that's just

> reality). If you'd like to have a voice one day, I'd suggest that you

> join the ranks of objective researchers and woo us with your research

> findings.

>> Finally Jim, I don't care what you do for your children when it

> comes time for vaccinations. If you refuse vaccinations for them I

> hope that there is not another epidemic, or they may be part of the

> unlucky few that suffer.

>>

>> Kind regards,

>>

>> Biologist

>>

July 9, 2008

, I'm not really following this thread, I'm afraid, but it just stands

out below that you said he's quoting posts you've made to this list. Does

that mean he is reading this list or able to access it in some way?

Just curious.

Sue x

-- Re: Re: Anyone care to respond to this 'biologist'

that keeps posting to my blog concerning vaccines?