FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
MMR vaccine quotes
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [76 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:19 pm    Post subject: Re: MMR vaccine quotes Reply with quote

Bryan Heit wrote:
Quote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
You've got the links, please show us where they are flawed. Oh wait,
you've admitted to not understanding science - right here:

http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.alternative/tree/browse_frm/thread/310ef3f79a5f5601/05e37d372d82043d?rnum=21&q=admitted+heit&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fmisc.health.alternative%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F310ef3f79a5f5601%2F2fcdba847f8229b9%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dadmitted+heit%26#doc_24f14e98962501dd


So I guess we can ignore anything you say about the quality of
science. After all; if you don't understand it, then how could you
possibly be in a position to judge the methodology the studies use?


John blames science for his not understanding it. He feels that
science should be self explanatory.


It's a good thing science isn't that simple - otherwise we'd have the
whole universe figured out and I'd need a new job ;-)



Mercola, et al are cited here:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n24/abs/jbr20117.html

(you may want to get the study. If it is available in PDF format I
would like a copy. email it to mark[dot]probert[at]gmail[dot]com.)


Something is wrong with the link; I get a page not found error. I
searched for the author; I assume this is what you want:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/285/12/1576?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Mercola&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Nope. I'll look further.

Quote:
If so let me know and I'll forward you the PDF.


RAOFL! Like these http://www.whale.to/vaccine/citations.html



Been through those before. You are aware that it is 2006, are you not?


The answer to that question is still debated.


ROFL


Bryan
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

john wrote:
Quote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@nospamucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8klvt$ttg$1@news.ucalgary.ca...

or the fact MMR is dangerous, as it has killed children, as proven by the
fact the gov has paid out for deaths
Also disproved within the links I provided, and soon to be disproved yet
again:

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=bc8253e7-ec6f-4bbd-a01c-5295b731d3f9&k=7417



A letter on your latest junk science study:


The International Cochrane Collaboration confirmed the author of the study
you report on, Eric Fombonne is not qualified to be engaged in this kind of
work.

The last study Eric Fombonne carried out was dismissed as "impossible to
intepret". That was the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific review by
the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane team investigated 5000 medical
papers on the subject and cut them down to only 6 dealing with Eric's pet
topic and those papers were pretty shakey too according to Cochrane.
Regrettably, they had to throw Eric's paper out completely - it was junk.
And if you check the BMJ, you will find an editorial dealing with the
continuing problem of even the supposedly most esteemed medical journals in
the thrall to drug companies publishing junk - Can we tame the monster?
BMJ 2006;333 (8 July)..

This is what the Cochrane Collaboration said in a review of the safety of
MMR about Fombonne's last paper:-

"The number and possible impact of biases in this study is so high that
interpretation of the results is impossible".


That is a pretty damning comment. If you need the .pdf of the paper with it
highlighted - see the attached.

Said .pdf is not available on the Internet:

A search:

Web
Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.


Your search - "The number and possible impact of biases in this study is
so high that" - did not match any documents.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22The+number+and+possible+impact+of+biases+in+this+study+is+so+high+that%22&btnG=Search

Quote:
Fombonne is a psychiatrist and that means not a real clinician nor
scientist. Psychiatry is in the most unsuccessful branch of medicine in
history.

Here is a bias. Fombonne is also an epidemiologist who studies autism
and its epidemiology. Note that his wife is also an epidemiologist.

Quote:
Sadly, Eric goes around insisting "There is no scientific evidence that an
association between MMR immunization and autism exists." when there is
plenty of evidence. He just does not seem to want to admit it.

Next time you are going to run a story on one of Eric Fombonne's studies,
how about you put it in the "fiction" section?

Sincerely,

Mr Miller

Mr. Miller eats too many sour grapes. This sounds like a grumpy person
sending a letter to the editor.
Back to top
john
medicine forum addict


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8m3jv$hca$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
I see. Data is sound, so attack the researcher, and do it though a letter
you supposedly received from an unidentifiable source (Mr Miller). I'd
also point out that Eric Fombonne was just one of several researchers on
the project. This is how science is done - you surround yourself with
various experts, so that the study is done right. So you can question the
validity of Eric Fombonne's credentials all you want, but it doesn't change
the fact that he was one of 6 experts; including MD's and PhD's, who all
worked on the project.

For that matter, I don't suppose you could provide a link to prove what
you say is true; a search of Cochrane's webpage didn't bring up any
evidence of the article you claim exists; they don't even have Eric
Fombonne's name in their search engine! Not that I expect it exists; this
blatant attack on Eric Fombonne reeks of desperation. Must really suck to
see a long-held belief suffer a fatal wound.

As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139

Bryan

I'd like someone with a bit of impartiality

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

Some answers:

1. SafeMinds Aids to Correct Misinformation

A Quebec study to be published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics, the
official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, states that it is
"very clear" that there is no relationship between mercury-based thimerosal
in vaccines and the onset of autism. Dr. Eric Fombonne of the McGill
University Health Center bases his opinion on a study among schoolchildren
in Quebec, Canada. According to an analysis by SafeMinds, however, the study
methodology is unlikely to lend itself to such declarative statements and
should be treated with skepticism, for a number of reasons.

The study looked at 27,749 students in grades kindergarten through 12th
grade in a Montreal school district and found 187 cases of autism. The vast
majority of these cases (more than 90%) were born in years in which
thimerosal vaccines were widely used for infants in Quebec, as they were in
the US. Only a tiny fraction of the autism students were born when
thimerosal-free DTP and Hib vaccines were given, and these students may have
been exposed to thimerosal from the Hepatitis B vaccine newly recommended
for infants of foreign born parents, which made up over one fourth of the
greater Montreal population.

Dr. Fombonne wrongfully claims that large-population studies in the United
States, England and Denmark also disprove a link between mercury and autism,
and he states that "there is no autism epidemic." He conveniently ignores
the vast body of scientific evidence that has shown that environmental
factors such as mercury may have caused the increased number of autism
diagnoses in the US and other countries. Dr. Fombonne's actions have not
historically been in the best interest of families with autism-he has
declared himself an expert witness on behalf of various pharmaceutical
companies in thimerosal-related litigation. Thimerosal is a serious poison
that is harmful via inhalation, ingestion or contact with skin. Furthermore,
thimerosal- containing vaccines elevate mercury levels in the body to a
level where adverse neurological outcomes are known to occur. It is
irresponsible for any pediatric doctor to justify injecting our children
with mercury.

The prevalence of all autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) has risen to 1 in 166
children in the past 20 years. Several independent federal agencies and
respected scientists and researchers have received federal funds to
investigate the autism epidemic and the biological plausibility of a link
between mercury and ASDs. Multiple studies have indicated that there is a
connection between childhood vaccines containing thimerosal and the
incidence of autism. No conclusions have been made rejecting a link between
mercury and autism.

2. the study was immediately criticized as biased
by David Ayoub, an Illinois radiologist.

`Heavily Biased'

``This is just another heavily biased study by an author
with a long track record of financial ties to the drug industry,
and whose previous views on the epidemiology of autism have been
discredited,'' wrote Ayoub, who is also medical director of the
Foundation for Autism Information and Research, in an e-mailed
response to questions.
Ayoub said Fombonne's effort ignored several papers that
link mercury and autism. The omissions and Fombonne's testimony
on behalf of drugmakers raises issues about his ability to
independently analyze the study data, Ayoub said.
The study shows a four-fold increase in autism rates during
the 10-year period examined, Ayoub said. In addition, some
children may have been exposed to mercury from other vaccines,
including hepatitis and flu shots given to children and pregnant
women after 1996 that still contained mercury, he said in an
interview.

Symptoms

Autism symptoms include regression in speaking skills and
may develop after children are given vaccines, leading some to
link the events. Fombonne said the increased autism rate is more
likely tied to changes in the definition of autism, greater
awareness of the condition and rising numbers of services for
patients has boosted the number of children diagnosed with the
condition each year.
This isn't the first study to eliminate mercury as a
possible cause for autism. The U.S. government-chartered
Institute of Medicine in Washington issued a report in May 2004
concluding from a review of previous studies that no evidence
linked autism with thimerosal-containing vaccines or with shots
that no longer contain the mercury-based preservative.
The rates of disorders ``among children born in an era
where there was no exposure to thimerosal is significantly
higher than in the years before, when there was high exposure,''
he said. ``That's really a convincing argument that there is no
relationship between the two.''

3. All of his past efforts failed to hit any mark
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html except the one showing he was
working for the vaccine industry. Someone has to do their dirty work
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

john wrote:
Quote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8m3jv$hca$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
I see. Data is sound, so attack the researcher, and do it though a letter
you supposedly received from an unidentifiable source (Mr Miller). I'd
also point out that Eric Fombonne was just one of several researchers on
the project. This is how science is done - you surround yourself with
various experts, so that the study is done right. So you can question the
validity of Eric Fombonne's credentials all you want, but it doesn't change
the fact that he was one of 6 experts; including MD's and PhD's, who all
worked on the project.

For that matter, I don't suppose you could provide a link to prove what
you say is true; a search of Cochrane's webpage didn't bring up any
evidence of the article you claim exists; they don't even have Eric
Fombonne's name in their search engine! Not that I expect it exists; this
blatant attack on Eric Fombonne reeks of desperation. Must really suck to
see a long-held belief suffer a fatal wound.

As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139

Bryan

I'd like someone with a bit of impartiality

If that is so, why do you cite the anti-vac liars at SafeMinds?

Quote:

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

Should be called BULL Thrower.

Here is an excellent analysis of the SafeMinds crap:

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/index.php?p=392


Quote:
Some answers:

1. SafeMinds Aids to Correct Misinformation

A Quebec study to be published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics, the
official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, states that it is
"very clear" that there is no relationship between mercury-based thimerosal
in vaccines and the onset of autism. Dr. Eric Fombonne of the McGill
University Health Center bases his opinion on a study among schoolchildren
in Quebec, Canada. According to an analysis by SafeMinds, however, the study
methodology is unlikely to lend itself to such declarative statements and
should be treated with skepticism, for a number of reasons.

The study looked at 27,749 students in grades kindergarten through 12th
grade in a Montreal school district and found 187 cases of autism. The vast
majority of these cases (more than 90%) were born in years in which
thimerosal vaccines were widely used for infants in Quebec, as they were in
the US. Only a tiny fraction of the autism students were born when
thimerosal-free DTP and Hib vaccines were given, and these students may have
been exposed to thimerosal from the Hepatitis B vaccine newly recommended
for infants of foreign born parents, which made up over one fourth of the
greater Montreal population.

Dr. Fombonne wrongfully claims that large-population studies in the United
States, England and Denmark also disprove a link between mercury and autism,
and he states that "there is no autism epidemic." He conveniently ignores
the vast body of scientific evidence that has shown that environmental
factors such as mercury may have caused the increased number of autism
diagnoses in the US and other countries. Dr. Fombonne's actions have not
historically been in the best interest of families with autism-he has
declared himself an expert witness on behalf of various pharmaceutical
companies in thimerosal-related litigation. Thimerosal is a serious poison
that is harmful via inhalation, ingestion or contact with skin. Furthermore,
thimerosal- containing vaccines elevate mercury levels in the body to a
level where adverse neurological outcomes are known to occur. It is
irresponsible for any pediatric doctor to justify injecting our children
with mercury.

The prevalence of all autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) has risen to 1 in 166
children in the past 20 years. Several independent federal agencies and
respected scientists and researchers have received federal funds to
investigate the autism epidemic and the biological plausibility of a link
between mercury and ASDs. Multiple studies have indicated that there is a
connection between childhood vaccines containing thimerosal and the
incidence of autism. No conclusions have been made rejecting a link between
mercury and autism.

2. the study was immediately criticized as biased
by David Ayoub, an Illinois radiologist.

`Heavily Biased'

``This is just another heavily biased study by an author
with a long track record of financial ties to the drug industry,

And, Geier, Haley, ad nauseum are hired guns to be paid for their
testimony.

Quote:
and whose previous views on the epidemiology of autism have been
discredited,'' wrote Ayoub, who is also medical director of the
Foundation for Autism Information and Research, in an e-mailed
response to questions.

FAIR is another pack of anti-vac liars.

Quote:
Ayoub said Fombonne's effort ignored several papers that
link mercury and autism. The omissions and Fombonne's testimony
on behalf of drugmakers raises issues about his ability to
independently analyze the study data, Ayoub said.
The study shows a four-fold increase in autism rates during
the 10-year period examined, Ayoub said. In addition, some
children may have been exposed to mercury from other vaccines,
including hepatitis and flu shots given to children and pregnant
women after 1996 that still contained mercury, he said in an
interview.

Symptoms

Autism symptoms include regression in speaking skills and
may develop after children are given vaccines, leading some to
link the events. Fombonne said the increased autism rate is more
likely tied to changes in the definition of autism, greater
awareness of the condition and rising numbers of services for
patients has boosted the number of children diagnosed with the
condition each year.
This isn't the first study to eliminate mercury as a
possible cause for autism. The U.S. government-chartered
Institute of Medicine in Washington issued a report in May 2004
concluding from a review of previous studies that no evidence
linked autism with thimerosal-containing vaccines or with shots
that no longer contain the mercury-based preservative.
The rates of disorders ``among children born in an era
where there was no exposure to thimerosal is significantly
higher than in the years before, when there was high exposure,''
he said. ``That's really a convincing argument that there is no
relationship between the two.''

3. All of his past efforts failed to hit any mark
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html except the one showing he was
working for the vaccine industry. Someone has to do their dirty work

As usual, John posts drivel.
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were
real, or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to
it ASAP. Once again, you're caught in a lie.

And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. <sarcasm> Now there's an unbiased source </sarcasm>.

Bryan
Back to top
john
medicine forum addict


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8m3jv$hca$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
..
Quote:

As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139

Bryan


"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine"
The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act

By Bernard Rimland
Dr. Bernard Rimland is the founder and director of the Autism Research
Institute

I strongly oppose endorsing "The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act"
unless it includes clear and explicit language supporting meaningful
research on the role of vaccines and mercury as plausible causes of the
autism epidemic.

The proposed Combating Autism legislation is as sincerely dedicated to
combating autism as O.J. Simpson was to finding the "real killers" of his
ex-wife Nicole.

The fear that failure to pass the CAA will lead to a catastrophic
failure to fund future autism research vastly overestimates the value of
government funded research. Most such research is only of academic
interest, which gathers dust on library shelves and advances the "publish or
perish" aspirations of academic researchers. Is there any evidence whatever
that more than a miniscule percent of government funded research has
produced any positive and useful benefits for autistic children and their
families, or ever will? If you are aware of any examples showing such
research is serving a truly useful purpose, please let me know.

I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I
pointed out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause
of the epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory
research (as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated
since that time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the
vaccines contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967
from the mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had
during their pregnancy.)

The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. Real progress has been made in
bringing recovery to autistic children by physicians and researchers who
attend the autism/vaccine/mercury connection (see
www.AutismRecoveredChildren.com) A few million dollars, appropriately
directed, has accomplished, and will continue to accomplish much more than
the tens of millions of dollars directed along paths intended to exonerate
the vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, the IOM and the AAP.

I hope our consortium will purchase, or at least threaten to purchase
ads in USA Today an elsewhere saying "Defeat the (Pretend to) Combat Autism
Act". We should insist that significant resources be directed at exploiting
the treatments that we know work, such as special diets, food supplements
and chelation. We have a great deal to gain and nothing to lose by speaking
out loudly against this sham legislation which would, in the long run, be
harmful rather than beneficial to our children
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

Bryan Heit wrote:
Quote:
Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were
real, or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to
it ASAP. Once again, you're caught in a lie.

And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. <sarcasm> Now there's an unbiased source </sarcasm>.

I took several phrases from the letter and did a " " search on Google
and received no hits. I did the same on Google Scholar, and got the same.

I do not think the letter exists.
Back to top
john
medicine forum addict


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8mgi7$mp3$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
Long story short, you fabricated the letter. After all, if it were real,
or produced by the Cochrane group, I'm sure you'd have linked to it ASAP.
Once again, you're caught in a lie.


Quote:

And to try and back out of it, you posted a like to another, unrelated
source. And a well known anti-vax group at that. Best part is that you
called it an "unbiased" source. Funniest thing I've heard all day - the
stated purpose of the group you've quoted is to get mercury removed from
vaccines. <sarcasm> Now there's an unbiased source </sarcasm>.

Bryan

Hard to know what you are responding to. Try and keep my text in your
response.

the letter was by Clifford Miller http://www.whale.to/vaccines/miller6.html
and he produced a page from a Cochrane study

once again you resort to the lying accusation when you can't take it

and I think their bias is less than Fombonnes, if you want to trade ad
hominems
Back to top
Peter Bowditch
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:52 am    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

Bryan Heit <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Quote:
I see. Data is sound, so attack the researcher, and do it though a
letter you supposedly received from an unidentifiable source (Mr
Miller). I'd also point out that Eric Fombonne was just one of several
researchers on the project. This is how science is done - you surround
yourself with various experts, so that the study is done right. So you
can question the validity of Eric Fombonne's credentials all you want,
but it doesn't change the fact that he was one of 6 experts; including
MD's and PhD's, who all worked on the project.

For that matter, I don't suppose you could provide a link to prove what
you say is true; a search of Cochrane's webpage didn't bring up any
evidence of the article you claim exists; they don't even have Eric
Fombonne's name in their search engine! Not that I expect it exists;
this blatant attack on Eric Fombonne reeks of desperation. Must really
suck to see a long-held belief suffer a fatal wound.

It's very easy to falsely claim that something was said somewhere in
Cochrane, because the vast majority of the targets for
anti-vaccination liars do not have access to Cochrane, or even if they
do (anyone with an Australian IP address, for example) they probably
wouldn't know where to look.

One of the reasons that the anti-vaccination liars hate Stephen Basser
is that he took the time to examine every one of the references in
Viera Scheibner's book and found that many of them were spurious. This
is not new -
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2001/12december.htm#15yurko

Quote:
As for the study, here is the link. I'm sure you'll make up some excuse
to ignore it, but I'm giving it anyways. If you actually bother to read
it, I'd love to hear how you explain away this evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139

Bryan
--

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
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material;
further evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane
study behind it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if
this was truly based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't
you link your page directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different
groups of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the
things he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science
illiterate like yourself.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven.
But you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE
THING!

Bryan
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

And in another turn of events john has published yet another
science-free letter with no outside links, no citations of actual
medical studies, and nothing more then wild claims with nothing of
substance to back them up.

Come on, John. If vaccines are so dangerous you surely can find some
little bit of science from the last 5 or so years to prove the case.

You seem to be good at forging letters, why not forge an entire
scientific study?

Bryan
Back to top
john
medicine forum addict


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8oiv6$ik6$2@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
And in another turn of events john has published yet another science-free
letter with no outside links, no citations of actual medical studies, and
nothing more then wild claims with nothing of substance to back them up.

Come on, John. If vaccines are so dangerous you surely can find some
little bit of science from the last 5 or so years to prove the case.

You seem to be good at forging letters, why not forge an entire scientific
study?

Bryan

I think you are losing it Bryan, as usual you use ad hominem, me lying,
without a shred of evidence. Which is what I'd expect from someone who
works for the gov, Canada is it? is it true that the Canadian gov has never
paid out for vaccine injuries until recently?

That letter has a link to Millers web site, he is a lawyer
(Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England
Civil Proceedings), but you prefer to slander me instead of using your
finger to click your mouse

Let me help you, http://www.whale.to/a/miller_h.html

I expect you to withdraw your accusation of me making up the letter.

And it is easy to prove vaccines are dangerous, the $1 Billion paid out by
the US gov is evidence of that. Which is from 1-5% of the actual number of
vaccine injuries. And we know MMR kills, as the governments have paid out
for that.

I leave the fraudulent science to people like Frombonne and the AAP, and the
CDC, and IOM.
I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed
out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the
epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research
(as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that
time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines
contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the
mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during
their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. The
(Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

Bryan Heit wrote:
Quote:
I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material;
further evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane
study behind it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if
this was truly based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't
you link your page directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different
groups of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the
things he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science
illiterate like yourself.

Here is John's Clifford Miller:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/probono.html



Quote:

All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven.
But you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE
THING!

Bryan
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

Poor Bryan. Repeats the same ole, same ole..even AFTER he read it.

the letter was by Clifford Miller http://www.whale.to/vaccines/miller6.html
and he produced a page from a Cochrane study

Cochrane MMR review page 21

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8oiqm$ik6$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
I thought you couldn't support your claims with outside material; further
evidence that this letter, as well as the supposed Cochrane study behind
it, are a complete fabrication on your part. After all, if this was truly
based on a study from the Cochrane group, why couldn't you link your page
directly to that; rather then something on YOUR webpage?

For that matter, the page you link to isn't even about the paper in
question, but rather one that is FIVE years old. Completely different
studies, different authors, different methodologies, and different groups
of subject.

And it still leaves the question of who is Clifford Miller, and what
exactly qualifies him to comment on science. I suspect, given the things
he (you?) circled in the PDF, that he's another science illiterate like
yourself.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a direct link the the
Cochrane study where you/Millar claim Fombonnes research is disproven. But
you can't, can you; IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE YOU FABRICATED THE WHOLE THING!

Bryan
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Re: Bryan's Fombonne fiction Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e8oiv6$ik6$2@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
And in another turn of events john has published yet another science-free
letter with no outside links, no citations of actual medical studies, and
nothing more then wild claims with nothing of substance to back them up.

Come on, John. If vaccines are so dangerous you surely can find some
little bit of science from the last 5 or so years to prove the case.

You seem to be good at forging letters, why not forge an entire scientific
study?

Bryan

Marilyn Elias, "Psychiatric drugs fare favorably when companies pay for
studies", USA Today, May 24, 2006,
Link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-24-drug-studies_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Drug companies fund a growing number of the studies in leading
psychiatric journals, and drugs fare much better in these
company-funded studies than in trials done independently or by
competitors, researchers reported Wednesday.

About 57% of published studies were paid for by drug companies in 2002,
compared with 25% in 1992, says psychiatrist Igor Galynker of Beth
Israel Medical Center in New York City.

His team looked at clinical research in four influential journals:
American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal
of Clinical Psychiatry and Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.

In the report, released at the American Psychiatric Association meeting
in Toronto, reviewers did not know who paid for the studies they
evaluated, Galynker says. There were favorable outcomes for a
medication in about:

Eight out of 10 studies paid for by the company that makes the
drug.

Five out of 10 studies done with no industry support.

Three out of 10 studies done by competitors of the firm making the
drug.

The findings don't prove the companies are knowingly biasing studies,
says co-author Robert Kelly Jr., also with Beth Israel. The report
didn't look at the evidence for bias in design of the studies.

As drug companies increasingly fund research that yields favorable
outcomes for their drugs, there may be a built-in bias because journals
are reluctant to publish studies with negative or inconclusive
findings, Galynker says.

In October 2004, the pharmaceutical industry set up a database to allow
publication of all studies, positive and negative, says Alan Goldhammer
of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, trade
group for the drug companies. "We want to improve transparency," he
says.

Because drug studies are very expensive, pharmaceutical companies fund
those most likely to have a positive outcome, Goldhammer says. The
firms weed out drugs that don't work and consult with the Food and Drug
Administration to design trials that will pass muster with the FDA.
"We're constantly trying to develop new drugs to treat mental illness,"
he says.

Posting a negative study on the database is voluntary. "And common
sense dictates that the worse the drug does, the less likely you are to
volunteer to beat yourself up publicly by sharing that," says Sidney
Wolfe of Public Citizen, the Washington-based consumer advocacy group.

"We're seeing a huge tilting in the education of psychiatrists toward
the industry point of view on psychiatric drugs," Wolfe says. "And that
point of view is, 'Prescribe my drug, it's better.' "

The government should be funding more of this research because public
programs, such as Medicare, pay so much for psychiatric drugs, Wolfe
says.

http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/BogusScience.html

How Bogus Scientific Studies Are Created



How Bogus Scientific Studies Are Created
As mentioned in my "Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments"
article, over a period of 42 years, the tobacco industry spent over
$220 million funding over 1,500 scientific studies, yet not a single
one of these studies could find a relationship between tobacco and
lung cancer, heart disease, etc. As I mentioned in that article, a
group of high school students with a phone book could prove a
relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. My point to mentioning
this fact was that scientists are more than willing to accept money to
do bogus scientific studies.

In fact you can almost always predict what conclusions a "scientific"
study will come to by knowing just one key fact: "who funded the
study." The person who funded the study will always get the conclusion
they want. People who loosely call themselves "scientists" will always
make sure of that.

The pharmaceutical industry, with their total control over the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI),
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), etc. have also funded many, many
millions of dollars of bogus scientific studies. In fact, their budget
is in the billions of dollars every year!! Couple this with their
control of the media and you have the situation we are in today.

It is the Prime Directive of medical research to do two things:
First, make it appear there is "scientific evidence" for orthodox
cancer treatments, orthodox heart disease prevention treatments, etc.,
and
Second, make it appear there is "no scientific evidence" for
alternative cancer treatments, alternative heart disease prevention
treatments, and so on.

But how can a scientist not find value in a nutrient that treats
cancer or heart disease when the truth of the matter is that this
substance does have value? That is what this web page is about.

This web page will summarize a number of different tactics and tricks
that scientists can use to insure that their masters who fund their
studies get exactly what they want.


Tactics, Tricks and Fraud in Scientific Studies

Using Synthetic Versions of a Nutrient In the Study
In many studies of nutrients, especially vitamins, synthetic versions
of the nutrient were used in the study. Synthetic versions of a
vitamin do not have nearly the effect on a disease as a
quality-processed natural version of the same nutrient. For example:


"A new landmark study suggests that pregnant women should ask their
physicians for a prenatal supplement that contains natural vitamin E
for optimal health insurance. According to this new research, the
human placenta can deliver natural vitamin E to the fetus in much
greater concentration (3.5 to one) than the synthetic supplement.
Natural and synthetic vitamin E are not the same. Previous research
has shown natural vitamin E is better retained and more biologically
active than synthetic. To identify the kind of vitamin E in a
supplement, it is necessary to read the ingredients listed on the
label. Natural vitamin E begins with "d," as in "d-alpha-tocopherol."
The synthetic version begins with "dl.""
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/63882.htm


The Dosage is Too Low
When the news media blasts to the world that a particular vitamin or
other nutrient "does not work" at preventing or treating a disease,
they may mention the dosage of the product used by the orthodox
scientist, but they won't mention the real world dosage used by
alternative medicine practitioners. Frequently, the orthodox "study"
only used a small fraction of the dosage generally used by alternative
medicine.


Isolating a Natural Substance That Works in Synergy With Other
Nutrients
Scientists like to study one nutrient at a time, ignoring that in raw,
whole foods, this nutrient may be the best nutrient in isolation, but
in fact this nutrient only works in combination with several other key
nutrients in the raw, whole food. For example, orthodox scientists may
study Vitamin A, by itself, instead of the effect of fresh, properly
prepared carrot juice. By isolating one substance, they can then
generalize that they have proven that the entire natural food has no
effect on prevention or treatment.


Isolating and Studying the Wrong Nutrient
There are many thousands of phytonutrients in plants. No one has a
clue how many of them there are. Most of them have not been identified
or isolated. Few of them have ever been tested for treating cancer.
With glyconutrients, the situation may even be worse. Glyconutrients
may some day be found to be more effective at curing cancer than
phytonutrients.

When massive evidence suggests that carrot juice is one of the best
treatments for cancer, scientists quickly try to guess what it is
about carrots that kills cancer cells so well.

It might be beta carotene, it might be alpha carotene. No one knows
for sure. It might be a combination of 20 different things, only 4 of
which have been isolated and identified as of this date.

Nevertheless, such a possibility will not stop scientists from trying
to prove that carrots cannot cure cancer. They will select one or two
nutrients in carrots, claim that they know that these nutrients are
the only cancer-fighting nutrients in the carrots, and then use every
trick and tactic they can come up with to "prove" that carrot juice
cannot cure cancer.

No one knows the truth about why it works, but many people do know
that carrot juice is a major part of many alternative cancer
treatments. That is a fact. So is Essiac Tea, but know one knows for
sure why. Doctors have known for over a hundred years that the herb
Sheep Sorrel kills cancer cells, but no one can truthfully say they
know what it is about Sheep Sorrel that kills cancer cells.

But scientists don't want you to know how complex the synergy is
between multiple nutrients. They want you to think that they know what
the nutrients are that work, and that they have proven that since
these nutrients cannot, in isolation, cure cancer, that carrot juice
(or whatever) cannot cure cancer.


Contaminating the Substance Being Tested
In one case, at least, the NIH contaminated an already bogus pill
being used in a study. Natural laetrile cannot and has never given a
patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible.
The NIH refused to allow an alternative laetrile vendor to supply
natural laetrile for the study - so they could create a custom pill
for the study.

In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not enough for
them to not have any natural laetrile in the pill. A worthless pill
would not have given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning.
They also had to lace the pill with inorganic cyanide so that the
patients would have the symptoms of cyanide poisoning.

In other words, since they could not make a natural laetrile pill big
enough to induce the symptoms of cyanide poisoning, they provided a
pill with no natural cyanide, but laced it with inorganic cyanide to
induce the symptom.


Modify the Complete Treatment Plan
Generally, when the federal government wants to make sure a study it
funds will kill all of the patients, in order to make some natural
substance look ineffective, they will use multiple techniques. For
example, when doing a study of laetrile they created a totally bogus
"laetrile pill" and laced it with inorganic cyanide, as just
mentioned. But that was not enough. They also did not give the
patients the standard cancer diet used by alternative practitioners in
a complete laetrile treatment. This was easy to see because this
cancer diet, by itself, even without laetrile, would have produced a
survival rate significantly higher than orthodox medicine.


Tricky Statistics
Particularly with regards to "survival time," scientists frequently
use worthless statistical techniques to come to the conclusions their
funding sponsors want them to come to. For example, rather then
measure the total survival times of two groups, they may measure the
percentage of people who are still alive after a short length of time.
My "Introduction" article goes into this trick in more detail.


Choosing the Confidence Interval
A "confidence interval" is a number used in statistics which provides
the level of confidence that the results of the study are valid. In
trying to find "evidence" that an orthodox treatment works, another
statistical trick is to use a low confidence interval combined with a
large number of studies. In other words, if you use a low confidence
interval and fund a lot of studies, eventually one of the studies will
give you a "statistically valid" study. But it is not because the
product works, it is because of the nature of statistics and
probability.

On the other hand, when looking at alternative studies, there is no
confidence interval high enough that will convince the FDA to approve
an alternative treatment. As I show in my eBook, applying statistics
to the results of one alternative doctor yielded a confidence interval
equivalent to more than a thousand standard deviations (three standard
deviations yields a commonly accepted confidence interval in science,
using more than three standard deviations is too high for most
studies). But more than one thousand standard deviations is not enough
evidence for orthodox medicine.


Not Looking For the Right Thing
This was the tactic used over and over again in tobacco studies, and
it is a trick used over and over again in the pharmaceutical industry.
For example, in order to get funding from the tobacco industry, you
could not directly look for a relationship between tobacco and lung
cancer. You had to look for some irrelevant, but seeming relevant,
issue that "skirts" or avoids the real issue.

As an example from the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA only accepts
studies that compare an "old" toxic sludge to a "new" toxic sludge.
They will not legally allow or accept a legitimate study comparing an
alternative treatment to an orthodox treatment.


Preaching the Importance of "Double Blind" Studies
Scientists love to preach the importance of "double blind" studies
because in that way they can compare their "old" toxic sludge to their
"new" toxic sludge in the same study. But in many cases, a double
blind study makes no sense in the world. For example, how could you do
a double blind study comparing a person who refuses all orthodox
cancer treatments with someone who goes through chemotherapy? It is a
stupid concept, because after one day a person would know which group
they were in.

Likewise, how can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double
blind study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness,
their hair will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no
added pain, no sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will
not fall out, etc. A double blind study in this case is nonsense. What
are you going to do, secretly put Drano (a toxic sludge used in
plumbing to clean drain pipes) and ipecac (which makes people vomit)
in with the Vitamin C so the Vitamin C group will experience intense
pain and sickness and not know which blind group they are in?

There is nothing more stupid in the world of science that requiring a
double blind study in cases where it makes no sense.

But it gets worse. The whole point of a "double blind" study is to
remove any possible "psychological" effect in the study. In other
words, since the patients don't know which group they are in, there is
no "psychological" benefit or detriment to the treatment caused by
their beliefs.

So what is the ultimate situation where there cannot possibly be any
"psychological" effect? Using medical records, especially of people
that are already DEAD! When a person doesn't know that their treatment
is going to be used in a study long after they are dead, there
certainly is no "psychological" effect that influences their outcome.

As a further point in this regard, the patients who are dead, and now
only exist in medical records, could not possibly have known about
treatments that didn't even exist when they were being treated. So how
could there be a psychological effect?


Patient Selection (i.e. Selection Protocol)
When scientists want to make sure they do not accidentally duplicate
the successful treatment of alternative medicine, they may use a
clever way of selectively picking participants for the study. For
example, when Pauling and Cameron selected patients for their study
comparing Vitamin C therapy to chemotherapy, they selected patients
who had a wide variety of cancers. When the Mayo Clinic wanted to make
sure they did not come to the same conclusions as Pauling and Cameron
they did not use a wide variety of cancer types, they used a small
number of different types of cancers. By carefully choosing the
patients in a study you can largely control the outcome of the study.

Another trick they can use with patient selection is designed to make
alternative medicine look bad. But they usually don't use statistics
to do this, but rather they will use one patient at a time to make
alterantive medicine look bad.

For example, they can find a patient who was send home to die, after
being mutilated, poisoned and burned so bad that there is no way this
patient can survive. They then tell the story of an alternative cancer
patient who died, failing to mention that he was essentially dead
before he started taking the treatments.

Or they can find someone who didn't pick the right treatment for their
situation and died because of that. Because they suppress the truth
about alternative medicine, it is easy to find these people. These
people probably died due to the lack of truth available to them,
rather than the ineffectiveness of alternative medicine.

In essense, they can find a lot of people who took alternative
treatments who died. By not telling the whole story (whatever that
story was), they can make it look like alternative medicine is
useless.


Give Drugs Known to Interact With the Treatment
When the NIH wanted to "prove" that Hydrazine Sulphate did not treat
cachexia, they had a problem - there were already many scientific
studies that proved it did work. So what they did was give 94% of the
patients in the study a prescription drug that was known to neutralize
the effect of Hydrazine Sulphate. The patients died of course, and the
NIH got the data they wanted.


Hiding Who is Funding the Study
Many scientific studies are done by Big Pharma. Since these studies
are too overtly biased to be taken seriously, Big Pharma will
frequently seek out a big name scientist to attach his or her name to
the study, as if they had actually done the study. There are in fact
many different ways to hide who really does a study and many medical
journals couldn't care less anyway.

In addition to this, many medical journals ignore who funds a study
done by non-Big Pharma scientists. As was mentioned in my
"Introduction" article, with aspartame studies there was a clear
correlation between what the studies found and who funded the studies.


Bribing the Peer-Review Group
As mentioned in my "Introduction" article:


"In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most
respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors
declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors
of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to
drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent
experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive
that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been
paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new
standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per
year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?

This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the
tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been
pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing
doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual
authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and
paid for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific
results. While the NEJM and some other journals disclose these
conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the
data being discussed was often collected and analyzed by the maker of
the drug involved in the test."
http://www.healtoronto.com/big_pharm.html


Contracts With Scientists
Virtually all contracts between a scientist and a pharmaceutical
company will include a stipulation that if the pharmaceutical company
does not like the results of the study, they have the legal right to
suppress the results of the study, and the scientist is forbidden from
publicizing the results of the study and is forbidden from submitting
the study to a journal.

Very, very few colleges have the integrity to sign a contract that
does not have this contract clause.

What this means is that when a study finds a dangerous side-effect of
a prescription drug, or if it is found that the drug is worthless, the
information is legally suppressed.


Control By Funding
The fastest and quickest way to get on the "black list" of
pharmaceutical companies is to come to a conclusion they don't like.
Perhaps you have found out that one of their drugs kills more people
than they admit. Perhaps you have found a higher incidence of new
cancers in patients who took a particular type of chemotherapy drug.
Perhaps you have found that a natural treatment for cancer is superior
to all chemotherapy drugs. You can forget ever being funded again.

In short, if you don't give Big Pharma the conclusions they want, you
won't get funded again. Ever. Everybody knows that. It is the basic
"rule of the game."


Flooding Scientific Journals With Bogus Studies
To put all of these items in perspective, it was the ultimate goal of
the tobacco industry to flood the scientific journal market with bogus
scientific studies in order to dilute the valid scientific studies
that they were not able to control (i.e. fund).

The pharmaceutical industry has set even higher goals: use the
corruption of science and government to flood the scientific journal
market with bogus scientific studies, PLUS make sure the peer-review
people are also in their hip pocket, PLUS make sure that no studies
making alternative treatments look good can be published. They have
done well.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [76 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Vaccine autism evidence overwhelming john hepatitis 0 Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:22 pm
No new posts Vaccine autism evidence overwhelming john nursing 25 Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:47 am
No new posts Have You Heard This Vaccine Warning on Your Radio? \"Jan Drew\" dentistry 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:31 pm
No new posts Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD john nursing 133 Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:25 pm
No new posts Second Dose of Varicella Vaccine May Be Needed to Prevent... georgia lyme 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:08 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0391s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]