Desiree Jennings

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Desiree Jennings
42
Thu, 11-05-2009 - 7:48pm
I'm trying to find out why the link isn't working, but I read today that Desiree Jennings is undergoing treatment for vaccine injury and greatly improving.
    Apraxia Awareness
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sun, 12-20-2009 - 5:16pm

It's amazing that you would think so highly of the surgeon's words, yet you ignore well known facts and even ignore peer-reviewed work. I find that interesting.

Who died and left Orac all-knowing? Seriously.

He's a vaccine pusher and he is very experienced at it. My point is - why won't you use actual peer-reviewed pieces yourself...VS those which the almighty Orac wrote on his BLOG? It's a blog.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Sun, 12-20-2009 - 6:12pm

<<>>

Yawn. Personally, I am beyond tired of your continued allegations of conspiracy, while selectively addressing posts and 'combating the misinformation' with someone else's words. Believe it or not, I read SBM. All.The.Time. Occasionally, I learn something interesting. Occasionally, I vomit in my mouth a little.

You are either genuinely here to engage in actual debate, or you aren't. Thus far, you've only shown yourself to be just articulate enough to string together a couple sentences attached to a handful of regurgitated blog entries. Those of us that actually present you with reasonable information are continually tossed into the looney bin as a convenient distraction for the information we DO present.

I read all the skeptical blogs you do. Let's see how much in common we actually do have:

LBRB
Respectful Insolence
Neurologica Blog
SBM
EpiWonk
PZ Meyers
Denialism

There are a few others on SBM that I also read. But you see, I also read the other side without the preconceived notion that they are all crackpots. What I don't do, is drive-by troll ANY of those blogs, toss out a bunch of condescending, vitriolic blog entries and consider my point made. Perhaps you can try doing the same.

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Jamie


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
Sun, 12-20-2009 - 7:27pm
insert applause here.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sun, 12-20-2009 - 9:54pm

EpiWonk?

UGH! That one I just can't stomach! The rest are entertaining(in a sick sort of way).

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Mon, 12-21-2009 - 1:59pm

I read lots of things that I disagree with, there is no learning challenge in staying inside your comfort zone.

-Jamie

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Mon, 12-21-2009 - 7:00pm
So true!
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-06-2009
Tue, 12-22-2009 - 11:47am

So we have a similar reading list - what confuses me is when someone like you or crunchy claim that I ignore the facts and then when I ask what facts - there is deafening silence.


What I would be interested to hear is what "non science based" sites you find enlightening.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-27-2005
Tue, 12-22-2009 - 12:26pm

can you please explain this to me?

He claims that death rate for measles is 0.3%
but then states this ... (which was readily available on the CDC website until the beginning of this year, only it said 3-4 million cases) If you do the math, it's nowhere NEAR 0.3% considering 450/3000000 is 0.00015. If it were based on the original CDC wording 450/4000000 obviously, it's less.

What am I missing? If it's now 0.3% looks to me that by creating a vaccine, they increased the death potential for a childhood illness that wasn't there before the vaccine.


“Before measles vaccine, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. Each year in the United States about 450 people died because of measles, 48,000 were hospitalized, 7,000 had seizures, and about 1,000 suffered permanent brain damage or deafness.”

 

Tracy - wife to Ron since 9/9/03, mom to college sophomore, Jason (18), high school Junior Chase
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Tue, 12-22-2009 - 12:27pm

How we debate has little or nothing to do with how well we might *click* if we met on the streets.

"What I would be interested to hear is what "non science based" sites you find enlightening."

If the rest of these ladies are anything like me, they don't have a lot of time for anything more than a couple of websites and maybe facebook. I don't understand why you would feel the need for us to tell you which websites we visit or find "enlightening".

To become "enlightened", most of us read YOUR science because we have enough experience to know that its all YOUR SIDE will respect (in a debate situation). I am not really a *regular* anywhere except here and occasionally at Huffingtonpost and one other website. Often a link will lead me to a newspaper somewhere and I will post there but only if I see the obvious and deceitful fear-mongering. It's usually a poster who has first made it clear that they are a scientist or a medical professional. After gaining the readers respect, they tell people that their children will die if they are not vaccinated. They guilt them by saying "how could you not do this one thing that would protect your children from certain death?"

Well have you ever looked for all these dead never-vaccinated children???

That is the question. It's a simple one, but somehow it always leads to debate. Why? Either those never-vaccinated are dying of self-limiting diseases every day --- OR THEY ARE NOT.

Which is it?

And that should be the end of that.

But no. Then you have to start with your idiotic claims that herd immunity is protecting everyone and it starts ALL. OVER. AGAIN.

With your side IGNORING the fact that you have next to NOTHING to back up your claims. Right after you ignore smallpox facts, of course.

That sort of closed-minded science (if you will) is what "I hold in such contempt here".

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Tue, 12-22-2009 - 12:31pm

"and then when I ask what facts - there is deafening silence."

How 'bout you take me back to that deafening silence and I'll reply as soon as I get the chance.

When I came here today, I just assumed that I would be reading your whacked-out defense regarding serotype replacement.