Re: OT:REPEAT ABC News Cancels RFK, Jr interviews re: Thimerisol... For

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Sheri Nakken posted this in December of 05. I think it's a good example of

the all-reaching powers of Big pHARMa. It's all about protecting profits and

avoiding legal ramifications; they simply couldn't allow this to air; people

might start changing drummers for a new beat.

To hell with a destroyed generation of children and all others that are maimed

and killed in the name of money and deceit. And these same people would have us

take these losses for the greater good. If this does not constitute an evil

conspiracy, I don't know what does.

Anita

ABC News Kills Big Mercury Story - Says It's Too Hot, But May Reconsider

Political Parent group responds

An A-CHAMP Announcement

The online version of Rolling Stone's " Deadly Immunity " , by F.

Kennedy, JR., is already sparking a national debate on the use of

thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative, in vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy's scheduled appearances on ABC World News Tonight, 20/20

and his Thursday, June 16th appearance on Good Morning America regarding his

report, have been cancelled by ABC. Officials at ABC stated their decision

to cancel Mr. Kennedy's appearance on their network is because it is " too

politically controversial. "

However, this debate should be ratcheted up as the print version hits

the newsstands starting today. This will coincide with the unprecedented,

simultaneous release of the article on Salon.com.

Rolling Stone, released in a few markets on June 15, should be widely

available by this weekend.

With regards to ABC News canceling the story, our opinion is that they

are more concerned about protecting their huge advertising revenues from the

pharmaceutical industry than reporting news that could protect pregnant

women, infants and children from mercury tainted vaccines. SHAME ON ABC!

Lujene , co-founder of NoMercury and A-CHAMP (Advocates for

Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning), worked extensively with

Mr. Kennedy and his office over the past several weeks in preparing the

article for publication. The print copy will contain a sidebar from Ms.

, providing perspective from her experience as the mother of a

thimerosal-injured child and advocate for removing mercury from vaccines.

A-CHAMP encourages parents to obtain copies of Rolling Stone as soon

as they are available to distribute to legislators and members of the

medical community. Please spread the word to family and friends of Mr.

Kennedy's courageous article appearing simultaneously in Rolling Stone and

on Salon.com.

Do not wait for mainstream media to spread the word!

Join us in asking our elected officials to remove this known

neurotoxin from vaccines and to address the neurodevelopmental damage done

to 1 in 6 American children.

Please take a moment to send a message to your elected officials and

the media: Go here to let your voice be heard!

http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=7725681 & type=ML

---------------------------------

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Anita, I sent an e-mail through the site.

RE: OT:REPEAT ABC News Cancels RFK, Jr interviews re:

Thimerisol... For

Hi ,

Sheri Nakken posted this in December of 05. I think it's a good example of the

all-reaching powers of Big pHARMa. It's all about protecting profits and

avoiding legal ramifications; they simply couldn't allow this to air; people

might start changing drummers for a new beat.

To hell with a destroyed generation of children and all others that are maimed

and killed in the name of money and deceit. And these same people would have us

take these losses for the greater good. If this does not constitute an evil

conspiracy, I don't know what does.

Anita

ABC News Kills Big Mercury Story - Says It's Too Hot, But May Reconsider

Political Parent group responds

An A-CHAMP Announcement

The online version of Rolling Stone's " Deadly Immunity " , by F.

Kennedy, JR., is already sparking a national debate on the use of

thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative, in vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy's scheduled appearances on ABC World News Tonight, 20/20

and his Thursday, June 16th appearance on Good Morning America regarding his

report, have been cancelled by ABC. Officials at ABC stated their decision

to cancel Mr. Kennedy's appearance on their network is because it is " too

politically controversial. "

However, this debate should be ratcheted up as the print version hits

the newsstands starting today. This will coincide with the unprecedented,

simultaneous release of the article on Salon.com.

Rolling Stone, released in a few markets on June 15, should be widely

available by this weekend.

With regards to ABC News canceling the story, our opinion is that they

are more concerned about protecting their huge advertising revenues from the

pharmaceutical industry than reporting news that could protect pregnant

women, infants and children from mercury tainted vaccines. SHAME ON ABC!

Lujene , co-founder of NoMercury and A-CHAMP (Advocates for

Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning), worked extensively with

Mr. Kennedy and his office over the past several weeks in preparing the

article for publication. The print copy will contain a sidebar from Ms.

, providing perspective from her experience as the mother of a

thimerosal-injured child and advocate for removing mercury from vaccines.

A-CHAMP encourages parents to obtain copies of Rolling Stone as soon

as they are available to distribute to legislators and members of the

medical community. Please spread the word to family and friends of Mr.

Kennedy's courageous article appearing simultaneously in Rolling Stone and

on Salon.com.

Do not wait for mainstream media to spread the word!

Join us in asking our elected officials to remove this known

neurotoxin from vaccines and to address the neurodevelopmental damage done

to 1 in 6 American children.

Please take a moment to send a message to your elected officials and

the media: Go here to let your voice be heard!

http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=7725681 & type=ML

---------------------------------

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Your welcome!

Collier <giada05@...> wrote: Thanks Anita, I sent an e-mail through the

site.

----- Original Message -----

---------------------------------

All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

OK, it's , not . And at this point I'm not even sure

anymore whether we are really agreeing or disagreeing. I would like to

know what exactly it is that YOU think I'm saying. And what would make

something not a conspiracy vs. being a conspiracy? -Angie

>

> Sheri Nakken posted this in December of 05. I think it's a good

> example of the all-reaching powers of Big pHARMa. It's all about

> protecting profits and avoiding legal ramifications; they simply

> couldn't allow this to air; people might start changing drummers for a

> new beat.

> To hell with a destroyed generation of children and all others that

> are maimed and killed in the name of money and deceit. And these same

> people would have us take these losses for the greater good. If this

> does not constitute an evil conspiracy, I don't know what does.

> Anita

>

> ABC News Kills Big Mercury Story - Says It's Too Hot, But May

> Reconsider

> Political Parent group responds

>

> An A-CHAMP Announcement

>

> The online version of Rolling Stone's " Deadly Immunity " , by F.

> Kennedy, JR., is already sparking a national debate on the use of

> thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative, in vaccines.

> Mr. Kennedy's scheduled appearances on ABC World News Tonight, 20/20

> and his Thursday, June 16th appearance on Good Morning America

> regarding his

> report, have been cancelled by ABC. Officials at ABC stated their

> decision

> to cancel Mr. Kennedy's appearance on their network is because it is

> " too

> politically controversial. "

> However, this debate should be ratcheted up as the print version hits

> the newsstands starting today. This will coincide with the

> unprecedented,

> simultaneous release of the article on Salon.com.

> Rolling Stone, released in a few markets on June 15, should be widely

> available by this weekend.

> With regards to ABC News canceling the story, our opinion is that they

> are more concerned about protecting their huge advertising revenues

> from the

> pharmaceutical industry than reporting news that could protect pregnant

> women, infants and children from mercury tainted vaccines. SHAME ON

> ABC!

> Lujene , co-founder of NoMercury and A-CHAMP (Advocates for

> Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning), worked extensively

> with

> Mr. Kennedy and his office over the past several weeks in preparing the

> article for publication. The print copy will contain a sidebar from Ms.

> , providing perspective from her experience as the mother of a

> thimerosal-injured child and advocate for removing mercury from

> vaccines.

> A-CHAMP encourages parents to obtain copies of Rolling Stone as soon

> as they are available to distribute to legislators and members of the

> medical community. Please spread the word to family and friends of Mr.

> Kennedy's courageous article appearing simultaneously in Rolling Stone

> and

> on Salon.com.

> Do not wait for mainstream media to spread the word!

> Join us in asking our elected officials to remove this known

> neurotoxin from vaccines and to address the neurodevelopmental damage

> done

> to 1 in 6 American children.

> Please take a moment to send a message to your elected officials and

> the media: Go here to let your voice be heard!

> http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=7725681 & type=ML

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great

> rates starting at 1¢/min.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> OK, it's , not . And at this point I'm not even sure

> anymore whether we are really agreeing or disagreeing. I would like to

> know what exactly it is that YOU think I'm saying. And what would make

> something not a conspiracy vs. being a conspiracy? -Angie

The saying goes: " Follow those who seek the truth, beware those who

find it. "

The consept of " conspiracy " is in my opinion not very helpful for

rational analysis, as reality is more complex than the conspiracy

concept leads one to think. Also, to most people a giant conspiracy of

the government(s) and large corporations is not very believable, so

talking about a giant conspiracy tends to make the person talking

about the conspiracy lose credibility in the eyes of most people.

I think reality is more like what and I have suggested as the

reasons for the " House " episode - most people have sincere ideas,

beliefs and wants, and make their own decisions for their own reasons.

All these decisions made by people separately are of course are

influenced by economy (after all, one has to somehow feed oneself and

family) and media. Sure, things may result in outcomes the people

maybe would not want if aware of all the consequences, but taken

separately the actions will not be considered unethical or wrong by

most people.

It's not like most of the people whose actions count are willing

participants in an evil conspiracy to do some evil deed. Sure, there

are some people who are willingly acting unethically, doing wrong,

etc. But I think the sad thing is that these who clearly are

wrongdoers are so few, but their actions are magnified thousandfold by

a system made possible by ethical, good people, who believe what

they're doing is good. We may believe rheir beliefs are erroneous, but

can hardly be changed by declaring that they are willing participants

in a giant conspiracy to do evil deeds.

Jyrki

[Guest guest]

Hi Jyrki,

The Homeopath who helped me come to the right decision regarding my son's

squirrel bite shared a story with me. She consulted her brother, who is a

doctor, and was told by him if it were his son, he would not have gone to the ER

either. However, if a patient were to seek his advice on the matter, he would

have NO choice but to send them in for dreaded and harmful treatment. He also

said that part of his training/education to become a medical doctor was how to

avoid being sued. Here is a man who knows better, but must hold his tongue and

follow dangerous protocol whether it is needed or not. What do you call that

*reality* and how do you justify it?

Anita

jkpikifi <jkppl@...> wrote:

The saying goes: " Follow those who seek the truth, beware those who

find it. "

The consept of " conspiracy " is in my opinion not very helpful for

rational analysis, as reality is more complex than the conspiracy

concept leads one to think. Also, to most people a giant conspiracy of

the government(s) and large corporations is not very believable, so

talking about a giant conspiracy tends to make the person talking

about the conspiracy lose credibility in the eyes of most people.

I think reality is more like what and I have suggested as the

reasons for the " House " episode - most people have sincere ideas,

beliefs and wants, and make their own decisions for their own reasons.

All these decisions made by people separately are of course are

influenced by economy (after all, one has to somehow feed oneself and

family) and media. Sure, things may result in outcomes the people

maybe would not want if aware of all the consequences, but taken

separately the actions will not be considered unethical or wrong by

most people.

It's not like most of the people whose actions count are willing

participants in an evil conspiracy to do some evil deed. Sure, there

are some people who are willingly acting unethically, doing wrong,

etc. But I think the sad thing is that these who clearly are

wrongdoers are so few, but their actions are magnified thousandfold by

a system made possible by ethical, good people, who believe what

they're doing is good. We may believe rheir beliefs are erroneous, but

can hardly be changed by declaring that they are willing participants

in a giant conspiracy to do evil deeds.

Jyrki

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more. Reality is a lot more complex, there's a lot

more innocence... and the evil that is out there is more subtle and,

therefore, probably more dangerous. What is more dangerous than a

neighbor who believes vaccines are essential and who reports you to

child protective services because you don't vax? And who among us

hasn't done something we thought was right, only later to realize we

were wrong? -Angie

On Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 03:23 AM, jkpikifi wrote:

>

> >

> > OK, it's , not . And at this point I'm not even sure

> > anymore whether we are really agreeing or disagreeing. I would like

> to

> > know what exactly it is that YOU think I'm saying. And what would

> make

> > something not a conspiracy vs. being a conspiracy? -Angie

>

> The saying goes: " Follow those who seek the truth, beware those who

> find it. "

>

> The consept of " conspiracy " is in my opinion not very helpful for

> rational analysis, as reality is more complex than the conspiracy

> concept leads one to think. Also, to most people a giant conspiracy of

> the government(s) and large corporations is not very believable, so

> talking about a giant conspiracy tends to make the person talking

> about the conspiracy lose credibility in the eyes of most people.

>

> I think reality is more like what and I have suggested as the

> reasons for the " House " episode - most people have sincere ideas,

> beliefs and wants, and make their own decisions for their own reasons.

> All these decisions made by people separately are of course are

> influenced by economy (after all, one has to somehow feed oneself and

> family) and media. Sure, things may result in outcomes the people

> maybe would not want if aware of all the consequences, but taken

> separately the actions will not be considered unethical or wrong by

> most people.

>

> It's not like most of the people whose actions count are willing

> participants in an evil conspiracy to do some evil deed. Sure, there

> are some people who are willingly acting unethically, doing wrong,

> etc. But I think the sad thing is that these who clearly are

> wrongdoers are so few, but their actions are magnified thousandfold by

> a system made possible by ethical, good people, who believe what

> they're doing is good. We may believe rheir beliefs are erroneous, but

> can hardly be changed by declaring that they are willing participants

> in a giant conspiracy to do evil deeds.

>

> Jyrki

>

>

**********

" At that point, I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have

the ability. " -Ron White

[Guest guest]

> I believe we started talking about the amount of power and

> restrictions BIG pHARMa has with major networks; something you said

> you don't believe exisits or is even necessary. I want to say we are

> disagreeing on that point.

See, I'm glad I asked. I DO think Big Pharma tries to extend its

tentacles everywhere it can, and I especially think that plain

economics (not a conspiracy) comes into play because Big Pharma

contributes a lot of commercial money to TV shows and TV shows aren't

going to want to piss off their sponsors. I am SURE that one reason

news stories that are unfavorable to Big Pharma get dropped is because

the news people are afraid of losing their sponsors. And, by the way,

Big Pharma spends more money on advertising than R & D, and they spend

MORE money marketing drugs to doctors (think of all those pens,

notepads, and clipboards with the name of a drug on them) than they do

to us regular people in ads or TV commercials. These stats I got from a

PBS special called " The Other Drug War. "

My point was that it was not the ONLY factor, and that pro-pharma shows

and storylines *could* appear just because of the belief systems of

those writing them.

I believe other entities and factors influence the media. News shows

have been known to drop stories that would annoy their sponsors if, for

example, their sponsors hold certain political views and the news

stories would challenge that. News shows worry about pressure from

special interest groups and movements, like the political correctness

movement. The Reagan miniseries came under fire for being too

influenced by the Left. The recent 9/11 miniseries came under fire for

being too influenced by the Right. Many story lines in Hollywood are

influenced by the beliefs of the writers... for example, that

homosexuality has been unfairly stigmatized, or that organized religion

hurts people and is too rigid. This is one of the reasons the Religious

Right hates Hollywood. And, yes, they have the same problem with

believing that it's all a giant conspiracy, that the " gay agenda " is

inflitrating Hollywood, rather than believing that many people in

Hollywood actually think homosexuality has been unfairly stigmatized

and want to use their power to change that. In fact, I believe one of

the reasons organized religion (in particular Christianity) is so often

attacked in films and TV shows is because (a) it's an easy target (the

writers are lazy) and ( lots of the writers, producers, actors, etc.

have been hurt by organized religion. Makes sense, considering that

artistic types are usually somewhat of outcasts in regular society

(think of the drama kids at your high school). As a Christian, I hear

from LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of people who have been really hurt by

religion; it makes me very sad.

>

> In my humble oppinion, I think you might be giving too much credit to

> the common belief system of writers, actors and network bigwigs. You

> said, " Take a poll of the writers and producers of such shows and ask

> them whether they believe in medicine or technology or vaccines, and

> I'll bet the majority of them would say " yes. " Such a poll would be

> useless and insincere; these guys have too much to lose by being

> honest.

So you think that NONE of them believe this? That they don't vax their

kids, don't use antibiotics, don't believe in modern medicine? Then how

come so many of them end up at Cedars Sinai Hospital for " lifesaving "

treatments? Why do so many stump for causes, like finding a cure for

this or that? Especially when their own kid has it? I'll bet a lot of

them will be behind this new HPV vax on the misguided belief that it is

" helping women. " The scenario it sounds like you are posing is that

they secretly don't believe anything they are writing and call up their

sponsors every morning asking them what they want them to write.

> Bob (whose NBC network aired the autism week long series I

> mentioned) was forced to look at the thimerisol/autism connection and

> is supporting his daughter who is thoroughly convinced thimerisol in

> certain vaccines is responsible for her sons autism. This was not

> looked at in the series. was FLOODED with emails from

> thousands of angry parents for ending the show by not giving an ounce

> of credence to this well researched and well supported theory; he used

> a puppet doctor to defend BIG pHARMa's thimerisol laden vaccines; it

> was so

> insulting.

>

> could have easily run another series looking more deeply at

> this issue (not just saying that some mis-informed people believe this

> to be the cause) and given a solid voice to the thousands of parents,

> educators and doctors/scientists who also believe this to be true

> (including his very own daughter). Instead he appeared with his

> daughter as the wordless supportive dad on the Imus show while she

> told her sad story. Because of this powerful family, an

> incredible amount of awareness was raised in the kind of circles

> (including other networks) where a real difference could have been

> made. This won't happen because of the heavy hand of BIG pHARMa.

In this case I agree. But it's not what they are " permitted " to air (as

you say below), but their fear that they will lose their sponsors. If I

were them, and I might lose all my sponsors and then be fired because

my network was losing money, *I'd* have a hard time " airing the truth "

too. I would find excuses not to. Most people are looking out for their

own good and aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in. And

for good reason: most whistleblowers, for example, get fired. They've

done a good deed, but nobody's making a statue of them or naming a

holiday after them.

> What these major network people believe and what appeals to the masses

> are two entirely different things (as I see it) and most importantly,

> what they are permitted to air is dictated by their sponsors. I know

> you don't agree, . I just call them as I see them; I could be

> completely wrong.

I *don't* think you're completely wrong; it's not black or white. I

think it's some of this, and some of that.

>

> I'm not a conspiracy expert or theorist, I am a realist who will not

> be herded with my children, especially to the slaughter house. On

> that, I'm sure we do agree. It is a sad and dangerous world to

> navigate when truths like these are purposely suppressed by people who

> know better (again, this is where we disagree) and have the greatest

> power to reach the masses to help and enlighten them all because of

> money.

No, I completely agree. People who stand up to the status quo are often

severely penalized... like Wakefield. Every person who

challenged the status quo has been penalized, often severely: (Galileo,

Darwin). You have to work to change beliefs over time. But, again, I

think part of it is just that people don't like their belief systems

challenged, and they see those who do so as threats. I have no doubt

that those (or some of those) who persecuted Wakefield did so because

they believed he was truly dangerous and harmful. In fact, didn't you

go after Rolf (on this list) for saying X-Rays weren't harmful? And

isn't that because you thought what he was saying was truly dangerous

and harmful? Or is it because the Anti-X-Ray industry conspiracy is

pressuring you not to " admit " what you really " know " to be true? Or

maybe you receive income from the anti-X-Ray folks. Do you see what I

mean? (by the way, I agree with you about X-Rays, and I don't believe

there's an X-ray conspiracy, I'm just making a point).

> That is all I am saying. Though I'm not the writer you are, I hope I

> have answered your questions below. As always, I appreciate your

> opinions....Anita

[Guest guest]

Totten wrote: " >afaltotten@...> wrote:

In my humble oppinion, I think you might be giving too much credit to

> the common belief system of writers, actors and network bigwigs. You

> said, " Take a poll of the writers and producers of such shows and ask

> them whether they believe in medicine or technology or vaccines, and

> I'll bet the majority of them would say " yes. " Such a poll would be

> useless and insincere; these guys have too much to lose by being

> honest.

So you think that NONE of them believe this?

>Certainly not. I am only saying that the number of those who do believe or

even question the idea that vaccinations/medicine may be doing more harm than

good is greater than you might think. Let me be clear that my thoughts and

comments here are on medicine/vaccination; I can't comment on the other areas

you mentioned (too long-I had to do some snipping)....Anita

That they don't vax their

kids, don't use antibiotics, don't believe in modern medicine? Then how

come so many of them end up at Cedars Sinai Hospital for " lifesaving "

treatments? Why do so many stump for causes, like finding a cure for

this or that? Especially when their own kid has it?

>Of course not, . I can't answer these questions as I never said such

things.

The scenario it sounds like you are posing is that

they secretly don't believe anything they are writing and call up their

sponsors every morning asking them what they want them to write.

>I have posed no such scenario. The rules are made clear by BIG pHARMa from

the start. Networks know exactly what they can and can't air regardless of what

they believe in; no phone calls necessary...Anita

> Bob (whose NBC network aired the autism week long series I

> mentioned) was forced to look at the thimerisol/autism connection and

> is supporting his daughter who is thoroughly convinced thimerisol in

> certain vaccines is responsible for her sons autism. This was not

> looked at in the series. was FLOODED with emails from

> thousands of angry parents for ending the show by not giving an ounce

> of credence to this well researched and well supported theory; he used

> a puppet doctor to defend BIG pHARMa's thimerisol laden vaccines; it

> was so

> insulting.

>

> could have easily run another series looking more deeply at

> this issue (not just saying that some mis-informed people believe this

> to be the cause) and given a solid voice to the thousands of parents,

> educators and doctors/scientists who also believe this to be true

> (including his very own daughter). Instead he appeared with his

> daughter as the wordless supportive dad on the Imus show while she

> told her sad story. Because of this powerful family, an

> incredible amount of awareness was raised in the kind of circles

> (including other networks) where a real difference could have been

> made. This won't happen because of the heavy hand of BIG pHARMa.

In this case I agree. But it's not what they are " permitted " to air (as

you say below), but their fear that they will lose their sponsors.

>Yes, fear is the driving force here. They are not permitted to air what is

not accepted by the sponsor. They not only fear, but know they will lose

sponsors/Huge$$ and jobs. They are controlled by fear and greed. This is exactly

what I'm trying to say...Anita

If I were them, and I might lose all my sponsors and then be fired because

my network was losing money, *I'd* have a hard time " airing the truth "

too. I would find excuses not to. Most people are looking out for their

own good and aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in.

>That may be true on some level, but not when the lives of children are at

stake. You don't take part in this kind of deception for any amount of money.

We need more people to rise above *most people*...Anita

And for good reason: most whistleblowers, for example, get fired. They've

done a good deed, but nobody's making a statue of them or naming a

holiday after them.

>Still they go on. They still have a conscience and the peace of knowing they

have done a great deed for humanity truely for the greater good. There are other

rewards in life besides recognition and money...Anita

> What these major network people believe and what appeals to the masses > are

two entirely different things (as I see it) and most importantly,

> what they are permitted to air is dictated by their sponsors. I know

> you don't agree, . I just call them as I see them; I could be

> completely wrong.

I *don't* think you're completely wrong; it's not black or white. I

think it's some of this, and some of that.

>Fair enough...Anita

>

> I'm not a conspiracy expert or theorist, I am a realist who will not

> be herded with my children, especially to the slaughter house. On

> that, I'm sure we do agree. It is a sad and dangerous world to

> navigate when truths like these are purposely suppressed by people who

> know better (again, this is where we disagree) and have the greatest

> power to reach the masses to help and enlighten them all because of

> money.

No, I completely agree. People who stand up to the status quo are often

severely penalized... like Wakefield. Every person who

challenged the status quo has been penalized, often severely: (Galileo,

Darwin). You have to work to change beliefs over time. But, again, I

think part of it is just that people don't like their belief systems

challenged, and they see those who do so as threats. I have no doubt

that those (or some of those) who persecuted Wakefield did so because

they believed he was truly dangerous and harmful.

>Harmful to patients or harmful to medicine as they know it?...Anita

In fact, didn't you go after Rolf (on this list) for saying X-Rays weren't

harmful? And isn't that because you thought what he was saying was truly

dangerous and harmful? Or is it because the Anti-X-Ray industry conspiracy is

pressuring you not to " admit " what you really " know " to be true? Or

maybe you receive income from the anti-X-Ray folks. Do you see what I

mean? (by the way, I agree with you about X-Rays, and I don't believe

there's an X-ray conspiracy, I'm just making a point).

>And some good points you make. I agree we have to work hard to change beliefs

over time. If more people would take charge of their own lives and give

themselves more credit for knowing what is best for themselves and their

families, we would see a bigger shift. Too much work for *most people* I'm

afraid. And the fear of screwing up is unforgiving..Anita

---------------------------------

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

" For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over

public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. "

Back to the question of " what to do? " Transparency and information on

the actions of the different " players " in the field of medicine and

vaccines are essential. I think the Internet with things like

Wikipedia and " open access " in academic research may play a very

important role in how things change for the better. It has become

quite easy to find financial ties between the public sector " experts "

and commercial interests, and to find out how the system works.

Also, it has become easy to see that claims like " all doctos are in

favor of all vaccinations " and " the benefits always outweigh the

risks " are simply false. Everyone can view a 90-minute video

documentary like " Vaccination - The Hidden Truth (1998) " (1)

or read a medical doctor's thesis " FROM IMMUNOLOGY TO SOCIAL POLICY:

EPISTEMOLOGY AND ETHICS IN THE CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF

PAEDIATRIC VACCINES " (2) which points out how little is known about

immunology.

Jyrki

(1)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8610554679207090010 & q=vaccinations & pr=go\

og-sl & hl=en

(2)

http://adt.lib.utas.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-TU20041117.161706/public/02Whole\

..pdf

[Guest guest]

>

> I couldn't agree more. Reality is a lot more complex, there's a lot

> more innocence... and the evil that is out there is more subtle and,

> therefore, probably more dangerous. What is more dangerous than a

> neighbor who believes vaccines are essential and who reports you to

> child protective services because you don't vax?

" Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may

be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons

than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may

sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those

who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they

do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

-- C.S.

[Guest guest]

Boy, you really come up with excellent quotes to illustrate my point!

The tyranny of modern medicine and other things is held up by the

beliefs of you and me, and our willingness to act on those beliefs. Not

some all-powerful conspiracy of a few with financial/political

interest, but the " conspiracy " of millions and millions of ordinary

people who together hold a belief system. -A

On Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 06:38 PM, jkpikifi wrote:

>

> >

> > I couldn't agree more. Reality is a lot more complex, there's a lot

> > more innocence... and the evil that is out there is more subtle and,

> > therefore, probably more dangerous. What is more dangerous than a

> > neighbor who believes vaccines are essential and who reports you to

> > child protective services because you don't vax?

>

> " Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may

> be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons

> than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may

> sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those

> who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they

> do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

> -- C.S.

>

>

**********

" At that point, I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have

the ability. " -Ron White

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you know what I mean, .

No, actually I didn't, that's why I asked.

Hey, Anita, we don't have to continue this conversation. You get a

" free pass " ... I just read one of your last sentences that your son has

autism, and I'm guessing he got that from vaccines. I am really, really

so sorry that happened. I have the luxury of distance and theory in my

arguments, not hands-on experience; I think I might view things

differently if my precious son had been injured by something out there

that people involved had reason to suspect could hurt him. I hope your

homeopath is able to help you recover much of what was lost.

God bless,

Angie

**********

" At that point, I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have

the ability. " -Ron White

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Hi Jyrki,

>

> The Homeopath who helped me come to the right decision regarding

my son's squirrel bite shared a story with me. She consulted her

brother, who is a doctor, and was told by him if it were his son, he

would not have gone to the ER either. However, if a patient were to

seek his advice on the matter, he would have NO choice but to send

them in for dreaded and harmful treatment. He also said that part of

his training/education to become a medical doctor was how to avoid

being sued. Here is a man who knows better, but must hold his tongue

and follow dangerous protocol whether it is needed or not. What do you

call that *reality* and how do you justify it?

>

> Anita

Anita, this sounds worrying but not unusual. I always wonder where the

oath " First do no harm " comes into all this.

It seems to me that it is just plain words that doesn't mean anything.

Ingrid

[Guest guest]

Usual, I know, Ingrid. It seems that harm comes first in far too many cases.

It's a backwards approach to health. There is very little money to be made with

a " do no harm " natural, gentle approach....Anita

ingrid5317 <ingrid_schebesch@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi Jyrki,

>

> The Homeopath who helped me come to the right decision regarding

my son's squirrel bite shared a story with me. She consulted her

brother, who is a doctor, and was told by him if it were his son, he

would not have gone to the ER either. However, if a patient were to

seek his advice on the matter, he would have NO choice but to send

them in for dreaded and harmful treatment. He also said that part of

his training/education to become a medical doctor was how to avoid

being sued. Here is a man who knows better, but must hold his tongue

and follow dangerous protocol whether it is needed or not. What do you

call that *reality* and how do you justify it?

>

> Anita

Anita, this sounds worrying but not unusual. I always wonder where the

oath " First do no harm " comes into all this.

It seems to me that it is just plain words that doesn't mean anything.

Ingrid