Insulting my sources only provides evidence that you're a boor. I'll let it go this time, but the more of this you do, the less of your material I'll respond to.
I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:
**
But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
**
More insults, no evidence. Not a good start.
Like a certain group of doctors, I don't even believe that viruses exist, so this is a non starter. For the audience, who might have missed the post that PRS is responding to, I presented him with the following paper that challenges the current dogma that viruses are contagious foreign bodies:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com
Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.
Alright, 3 strikes (insults) and you're out. Get back to me when you can talk like a civilized individual. Or consider just opting out of this conversation altogether if that's too much for you to handle.
Bookmarks