Belief of Magic, Magik, Majic, Majik?

Post Reply New Topic

It turns out we are both wrong. My source seemed trustworthy but wasn't. Your sources were spun to make vaccinations look perfectly holy.

August 2008 Aids Origins, Polio vaccinations seems to be correlated to HIV and SIV outbreaks in 1957 by a 1992 committee report.
http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/55/53/

July 2001 Kaisernetwork.org, scientists attaching HIV and SIV DNA to Sabin oral Polio Vaccine. They hope it offers immunity to humans.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_repo ... DR_ID=5987

June 2002 BBC News, Northern Nigerians refuse polio vaccination because of dangerous vaccinations six years previously. Also, the vaccine could be contaminated with the simian form of HIV known as SIV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2070634.stm

March 2004 Taipei Times, state of Kano in Nigeria considers UN vaccines contaminated
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/a ... 6932/print

I didn't know how old you were. I assumed that since you didn't know recent history, you must have been recently spoon fed your worldview by the Humanists.
Remember that the head of the FBI was a Clinton appointee. Hundreds of FBI files of enemies of the Clintons had been stolen. The agents were questioning her and had guns! Would you feel intimidated?

As I say, if the Clintons don't get in office in November, the stories will start coming out.

Are you still pretending to be a Satanist?

TimT, WHERE the Hell did you get the idea that Bill Clinton raped women and WHAT evidence do you have for this claim???
That is,other than paranoid right-wing conspiracy Bullsh1t

Last edited by Haliphron on 02 Aug 2008, 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If free will is contrary to the wishes of G-D than why the HELL doesnt God abolish free will?

I take it you were not an early Obama supporter ....

Were YOU around during those early days of the Clinton presidency when women came forward -- and then shut up?

Yes I was as a matter of fact. I remember the Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers scandals quite well. There was a VERY concerted effort on behalf of the conservative politicians to sabotage the Clinton presidency. When the accusations of rape and sexual harassment were discreted for lack of evidence, republicans in congress turned to his denial of an affair with Monica Lewinsky and laid their legal trap.As for Juanita Broderick, when the details she gave about the alleged rape were followed up on it became clear that the information se supplied was FALSE. She MADE the whole thing up because she and her friends had a personal grudge against Clinton. You seem very gullible for all this baseless nonsense that you read on the internet I must say...

They exist only in movies and games.

No, you were wrong before, and you are wrong again. I was not wrong.

First, I didn't say that vaccines are perfectly holy. Like any medicine, they can have side effects. But the benefit/risk profile of vaccines is usually quite large. It IS true that the World Health Organization eliminated smallpox entirely from the human population (using vaccines). And there is something in the Bible about judging trees by their fruits. The WHO is a humanitarian organization, not a secular humanist organization.

Second, even if the sources I quoted are pro-vaccine (debatable), that has little to do with the facts of the matter - I was not wrong in pointing out that the paranoia over vaccines in Nigeria was stirred up by a group of Islamic clerics, and that the President of Nigeria did not find any secret evidence - he supported the vaccination campaign. You have born false witness against an organization devoted to helping people - while you may be sincere and well meaning, any fair look into the matter shows that you are propagating groundless accusations.




Great - you are providing links to articles that undermine your own theories. Here's that articles conclusion: "It is apparent that we consider the probability of the AIDS epidemic having been started by the inadvertent inoculation of an unknown HIV precursor into African children during the 1957 poliovirus vaccine trials to be extremely low. Almost every step in this hypothetical mode of transmission is problematic."

Someone raised the idea that a particular type of vaccine given in the Congo 50 years ago might have been contaminated ... Ok, fine, that is worth discussing, but it should be a rational discussion. And the article you linked to said it was not at all likely that the '57 Congo oral vaccine was responsible for creating or spreading SIV or HIV.

Vaccine manufacture techniques in the 1950s were not to the same standards as today. Blood transfusion technology has also come a long way - I know people who were killed by transfusion reactions that probably would be alive if current standards had been in place when I was a child. But there is no magic time machine - knowledge develops over time, and mistakes are made. I can accept the truth for what it is - medicine is limited in many respects, but improves if the science around it is intellectually honest.



So? You don't understand the science and you could read anything out of that article. That was done as a lab experiment to try to immunize monkeys to SIV - it did not involve HIV or HIV genes. That vaccine was never administered to people in Nigeria (or anywhere else). It might someday offer a route to immunize people to HIV, but that is years away. They are doing very limited testing to determine safety and efficacy in monkeys. It is what we call a model of HIV - something that can be worked with in a lab.

If I told you that Aunt Sarena used honey to get her children to swallow their tetracycline when they have strep throat, would you conclude that all honey was pumped up with tetracycline? The fact that one lab did one experiment that involved putting SIV into a polio virus doesn't mean anything outside of that one case.



No, their grievance was not about vaccines given six years earlier. It was about a pharmaceutical trial conducted by Pfizer Corporation. This trial involved the use of Trovafloxacin (a new, experimental antibiotic) to treat bacterial meningitis. 100 children with meningitis got the experimental drug, and 5 died. 100 children got standard quinolone drug treatment, and 6 of them died. Yet many in Nigeria see this as 'proof' of a plot to kill them. Over twelve thousand people died of meningitis in Africa that season - most did not get the approved antibiotic nor the experimental antibiotic, which is probably equally effective as the standard treatment.

And nothing in that article about how the vaccines might be contaminated with SIV.



I thought this was the key quote from that article: "We have arrived at certain decisions which we will not now discuss for technical reasons, ..." No proof that the vaccine was harmful or part of a plot, more likely, the committee was responding to political pressure. And the allegations made by the clerics were never supported by any evidence.

i'm whatever i want to be. i don't grant myself magical powers, though. mainly because magic, gods, mystical beings, demons all don't exist. it'd be nice to grant magical powers to myself but that's all fake.

They exist in the Harry Potter universe.

Paranoia is a mental emotional condition where there are groundless fears. To class all those northern Nigerians as mentally deranged is a little silly. They had good reasons to be distrustful and cautious. In this you are wrong.

Those articles were balanced pro & con. You pulled pieces out to justify yourself and "win" the argument. I'm pursuing truth, even though I sometimes come up with a clinker.

I sense that we need to discuss our sources of information we trust. As a liberal, I assume you trust the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, ABC, MSNBC and CBS. Since the employees are over 80% Democrat, that's the world view they reflect. Or in Dan Rather's case, that's what they broadcasted.

As a non-liberal, I take everyone with a grain of salt. Even Times of India and Al Jazeera tell the truth if their politics don't get in the way. I pay special attention to crisis moments when the news media are just dumping out what comes to them without censoring it. The censoring and spinning comes later when they change the story to fit their world view.

These women in question were not Republicans who came up with a consistent story to smear Clinton. They were sincere Democrats and workers who were disillusioned by Billy boy's attack on them. The Republicans aren't organized enough to pull off something like that.

By the way, I don't watch Fox News, either.

So WHAT credible sources do you have that Juanita Broderick and her friend were telling the truth? Do you know WHY the accusations were dismissed? Because she made CONTRADICTORY statements! But you are determined to believe what you Want to believe despite the mounting evidence against it. Is it really that hard for you to understand that when a plaintiff gives contradictory details they've discreted themselves? I am VERY cynical of anything that conservative news sources say about Clinton because in fact, they've shown that they have a strong bias against the clintons and they really could care less about facts and honesty. If you know what conservativism is and what it really stands for it should be clear that the right has a much stronger incentive to be dishonest than the left.

Keep on pursuing truth, but remember that science and physical reality are not like political philosophy. In science, a fair and balanced reporter cannot present 10 minutes of people arguing that the Earth is flat, 10 minutes of people saying that the Earth is a sphere, and then conclude that the evidence is split 50-50 and that no consensus can be reached. There is an objective, provable truth that can be reached, although some will not reach that truth because they cling to various ideas for emotional reasons.

I did not classify all northern Nigerians as mentally deranged. I personally believe that the people that were most alarmed and opposed to vaccination were irrational and paranoid - but most were simple people who heard rumors and rhetoric and were afraid. One of their pieces of 'evidence' that was commonly discussed was the US invasion of Iraq, which was 'proof' that the US was engaged in genocidal medical attacks on people in Africa. Does that sound rational to you, or maybe just a little paranoid??

Are you really That naive and ignorant TimT??? Its EXTREMELY EASY to generate histeria and panic among people in places like rural nigeria where people have very limited sources of information and are too poor to have TV, Internet, and newspapers. The word "paranoia" was being used in the colloquial sense and not the clinical sense, in case you're too gullible to figure that out-which you obiously are.