cohenite, if one is to consider trolls, perhaps you can give me some guidance from your own book of rules.

I have never supported AGW, I do however support Climate Change, it's been happening since this planet first established an atmosphere.

As for immunisation, nowhere have I supported not doing it, my posts only postulate that there have and continue to be problems with some immunisation processes. Here in Perth last year we had a number of cases where the flu-jab had significant adverse effects in a range of people, whether or not this is a vaccine problem or a personal adverse reaction remains to be seen.

I find it amusing that you are happy to slag off people because they have a particular 'bent' in relation to AGW, perhaps you just can't let go of your own 'bent'.

As any scientist will attest, consider the precautionary approach and back up your evidence through the tried and true scientific method using empirical evidence, peer review and learn that many scientific facts are continuously re-evaluated and lessons learnt.

If you prefer to live in the 'flat-earth' camp, fine by me, I just don't get your fervent bent on everything.

"I have never supported AGW, I do however support Climate Change, it's been happening since this planet first established an atmosphere."

Weasel words. And an attempt to take the reasonable position.

There is no difference between AGW and "climate change" from the viewpoint of the advocates of AGW; just because the terminology changes because of the dearth of evidence; I believe the hypocrite in the Whitehouse is now calling it "climate disruption".

Regardless of this obfuscation what you and every other apologist for this scam is talking about is man-made, deleterious effects on the climate from the emissions of CO2; which is now a refuted idea.

So don't conflate that with natural climate change; your position has been that humans are producing harmful changes to the natural climate.

Do you deny that?

>>Similarly, as doctors are only trained to "fix" bodies, they (and scientists in general) are unqualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccination.<<

So who is qualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccines? How do we establish if those people are properly qualified to assess spiritual dangers? How do we verify if their assessments are correct or not? If two qualified spiritual risk assessors come up with different answers to the same question how do we work out which one is correct?

>>No scientific research has, or ever can, study the spiritual implications of vaccinations, only the medical implications.<<

Quite right. But spiritual research can study the spiritual implications of vaccination. So I unearthed my old Ouija board and got in touch with a whole bunch of spirits. Then I said my prayers and talked to the gods of all the major faiths as well as lot of small gods. You know what? They all said the same thing: there are no spiritual dangers associated with vaccination. Jehovah did mumble something about blood transfusion being spiritually risky but He couldn't seem to make up his mind because when I asked him to repeat himself more clearly he just said 'forget about it'. And YHWH went to pains to point out that leaving foreskins intact was very spiritually risky. But there is broad consensus on the topic of vaccination. So you can stop worrying and go and get your kids vaccinated - Gods won't smite you or them.

>>Yes, if I am only informed of the medical risks but choose to ignore the spiritual dangers of vaccination.<<

I just told you that those dangers don't exist. There is nothing to ignore in the first place.

Cheers,

Tony

>>Over the next decades it will come to be realised the Aids pandemic was sparked by large-scale field trials of an experimental polio vaccine, trials that employed African ‘volunteers’ as guinea pigs.<<

Well that's one theory I suppose. But to be honest I think this explanation is a bit more credible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ0UpT7Xk4A

Cheers,

Tony

cohenite,

"...which is now a refuted idea."

I think what you actually mean is:

"...which is now a refuted idea amongst 'denialists' who reject majority consensus from scientists working in the various fields associated with climate."

Great and very well researched informative article!
One of the most outstanding anti-vaccine advocates, claimed to be a German professor of medicine? Both she and her fraudulent claims were found by four corners, [as memory serves,] along with her diplomas etc, to be as patently false as her claims.
Proof?
Well there are billions of case studies, that very clearly demonstrate the undeniable efficacy of vaccines, or that those asinine advocates denying their own children the patently proven protection afforded by vaccines, are contributing to the reinvigoration of various pandemic or killer diseases.
Self evidently, the ignorant as always, confer on themselves the right to kill?
Tomorrow's vaccines promise to be even more effective and safer, with Hydrogen Peroxide replacing formaldehyde, in the creation of vaccines.
Rhrosty.