Vaccinations; recent developments

[Magluvin]

Is it really worth my time showing you how Mike Adams is an illiterate moron here (and you by extension are a twice the moron he is because you decided just to vomit what he says) or can you just take my word for it that you are too stupid to live.  

Let me know.  I'll be happy to untangle this for you.

"Mike Adams is an illiterate moron"

"you by extension are a twice the moron he is because you decided just to vomit what he says"

"you are too stupid to live."

See people. This is pretty much all this guy has.    

Oh, but I have to ask for more info in order for there to be any real substance at all from this guy. Ill let him keep on extruding diarrhea of the mouth, as it is a great summary of his(above us all) character.

Im not asking. I went back to the beginning of the thread to see what he has been writing here from the start. After 10 pages, it was just the same old stuff Im seeing here lately. Pretty much nuthin.

Meanwhile......


"Gardasil, One Less Victim of Cervical Cancer?" France says 'NO' as they ban Gardasil ads


http://sanevax.org/gardasil-one-less-victim-of-cervical-cancer-france-says-no-as-they-ban-gardasil-ads/




What Really Went Wrong with Gardasil


http://sanevax.org/what-really-went-wrong-with-gardasil/





HPV vaccine in Carmen de Bolivar: A tragedy foretold



http://sanevax.org/hpv-vaccine-carmen-de-bolivar-tragedy-foretold/


Mags

[sarkeizen]

I have to ask for more info in order for there to be any real substance at all from this guy.

Think about it. 

i) I've shown a number of your postings to be incorrect or rather wildly inaccurate.
ii) You spend a lot of time avoiding simple straight forward questions.
iii) You mostly post from places like Natural News
iv) You never spend the microscopic amount of energy to read the studies involved.

What indication have you given that you're interested in an opinion contrary to yours.  Pretty much zero.

Im not asking.

Why would that be? 

I mean people doubt my sincerity here but I pretty much beg for people to post information to contradict my beliefs.  The only thing I ask is that they show me only the very strong evidence.  Which I'm happy to view, comment on and even change my mind.

So how sincere is someone who up front says: "Hey I'm not interested in hearing what's wrong with my beliefs".  Of what value is someone like that when discussing "Recent Developments in Vaccines"?   Seems like not much.

After 10 pages,

Wow...11% of a thread!

it was just the same old stuff Im seeing here lately.

You putting your fingers in your ears? 

[Magluvin]

Think about it. 

i) I've shown a number of your postings to be incorrect or rather wildly inaccurate.
ii) You spend a lot of time avoiding simple straight forward questions.
iii) You mostly post from places like Natural News
iv) You never spend the microscopic amount of energy to read the studies involved.

What indication have you given that you're interested in an opinion contrary to yours.  Pretty much zero.
Why would that be? 

I mean people doubt my sincerity here but I pretty much beg for people to post information to contradict my beliefs.  The only thing I ask is that they show me only the very strong evidence.  Which I'm happy to view, comment on and even change my mind.

So how sincere is someone who up front says: "Hey I'm not interested in hearing what's wrong with my beliefs".  Of what value is someone like that when discussing "Recent Developments in Vaccines"?   Seems like not much.
Wow...11% of a thread!You putting your fingers in your ears? 

"I've shown a number of your postings to be incorrect or rather wildly inaccurate."

You have shown nothing but your opinion. You show no sources or links.  Just your blown up opinion.

Over 40,500 reads on this thread. And its up to me to get you to put up some real info?  Na. Thats all on you bud. If this were a real debate, show me in all this thread where you win. I and the others post info, and you just water it down, no matter what is posted by me or any of the others. Not very convincing at all on your part.

Mags

[sarkeizen]

"I've shown a number of your postings to be incorrect or rather wildly inaccurate."

You have shown nothing but your opinion. You show no sources or links.  Just your blown up opinion.

Absolutely false.  However if there's an instance where you feel further substantiation is necessary.  Please point out the specific instance and I'll be happy to provide it.

But let me guess....you're not interested.

And its up to me to get you to put up some real info?  Na. Thats all on you bud.

Well a) Thanks for admitting that nothing you've posted qualifies as "information".  I'm glad we agree on that and b) I have absolutely no problem with providing further substantiation - I've even said this many times - you just need to point out the specific point of contention. 

But let me guess...you're not interested either.

no matter what is posted by me or any of the others.

Haven't you noticed that the vast majority of what you and others post come from a rather insanely small group of sites.  Do you also notice that none of you post actual studies?  Isn't that interesting?  All these posts. Not. One. Actual. Study.

Not very convincing at all on your part.

Yawn.  You haven't posted anything that passes for science and your argument is compelling...how?

Anyway when you decide to take your fingers out of your ears.  I'm more than happy to fill the empty space between them with something better than Natural News. However you do have to make that decision.  Today - you're just making excuses.

[Magluvin]

Absolutely false.  However if there's an instance where you feel further substantiation is necessary.  Please point out the specific instance and I'll be happy to provide it.

But let me guess....you're not interested.
Well a) Thanks for admitting that nothing you've posted qualifies as "information".  I'm glad we agree on that and b) I have absolutely no problem with providing further substantiation - I've even said this many times - you just need to point out the specific point of contention. 

But let me guess...you're not interested either.
Haven't you noticed that the vast majority of what you and others post come from a rather insanely small group of sites.  Do you also notice that none of you post actual studies?  Isn't that interesting?  All these posts. Not. One. Actual. Study.
Yawn.  You haven't posted anything that passes for science and your argument is compelling...how?

Anyway when you decide to take your fingers out of your ears.  I'm more than happy to fill the empty space between them with something better than Natural News. However you do have to make that decision.  Today - you're just making excuses.

"Absolutely false.  However if there's an instance where you feel further substantiation is necessary.  Please point out the specific instance and I'll be happy to provide it."

Really? Prove it. Further substantiation???  You havt substantiated anything thus far. You wont. You cant, so far anyway. Im not going to be your coach here. You either have proof or not. So far, not.


"Well a) Thanks for admitting that nothing you've posted qualifies as "information"."

Lol, a typical twist of words. I dont expect any better from you.     Lol you really think the readers cant see through that?    Come on readers, give Sarks a big hand here. Comedy at its worst.



"I have absolutely no problem with providing further substantiation"

Apparently you do. So far, you seem to have that problem from the beginning of this thread.    Right readers?


"Haven't you noticed that the vast majority of what you and others post come from a rather insanely small group of sites.  Do you also notice that none of you post actual studies?  Isn't that interesting?  All these posts. Not. One. Actual. Study."

And where are your posted studies? Hmmm?   So far, there is a lot of study of your foul mouth. And thats pretty accurate.


"Today - you're just making excuses"

See. Once again. Ya got nuthin.


Mags