Rebuttal to 'For the Good of the Herd'

[Guest guest]

To All,

Attached is a detailed 12-page rebuttal to

'For the Good of the Herd,' an op-ed piece

by Arthur published online on January

25, 2007 by the New York Times.

Hopefully, it provides all who read it with

an understanding of the realities that the

original either ignores or distorts with

respect to the ineffective influenza vaccines

in specific as well as the other issues that

Mr. 's op-ed piece has addressed.

Should any of you have any suggestions

for improving either of these or references

you think should be added, them please let me

know before 3 February 2007.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Guest guest]

,

Only about half of EOHarm subscribers get the postings through email.

The rest read them online at the groups website. The website

strips out attachments, so I have added your rebuttal to the files

section listed just to the left of the online browser page. In the

future you can upload your attachments there yourself and refer to

them there. In this case your rebuttal letter is the file 'TheHerd'.pdf

Lenny Schafer

EOHarm List Co-host

>

> To All,

>

> Attached is a detailed 12-page rebuttal to

> 'For the Good of the Herd,' an op-ed piece

> by Arthur published online on January

> 25, 2007 by the New York Times.

>

> Hopefully, it provides all who read it with

> an understanding of the realities that the

> original either ignores or distorts with

> respect to the ineffective influenza vaccines

> in specific as well as the other issues that

> Mr. 's op-ed piece has addressed.

>

> Should any of you have any suggestions

> for improving either of these or references

> you think should be added, them please let me

> know before 3 February 2007.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Dr. King

> http://www.dr-king.com

>

>

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>