Roundup

Good rebuttal to the Zeitgeist movie that denies Christianity and advances silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Greg Koukl points out the irrationality of evolutionists celebrating Earth Day 

No locust swarm stops short of denuding a field because it ought to “leave a bit for the crickets.  After all, we all have a right to be here.”  The logic of naturalism and the rules of evolution dictate human beings rape our environment, just as everything else does, not protect  it.

The moral obligations underpinning Earth Week activities simply do not follow from the naturalistic world view that embraces Darwinism.  It follows, rather, from a theistic world view in which God has created man as unique and given him responsibility over the Earth to care for it.  Earth Week makes sense for Christians, not for Darwinists.

Gardasil Moms: If one of those 32 dead girls or women was your daughter. . . — I wouldn’t rush out and get the vaccine for your girls just yet.

The Hidden Curriculum — “What do people learn from you about the Christian life? Sometimes it’s what you never intended to teach.”

Questions for Obama supporters — my favorite:

Obama was asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” His response: “. . . answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Based on his leadership in opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama has demonstrated that he believes that a baby gets human rights at an unspecified time AFTER he or she is born.  My question to liberals: is infanticide acceptable?

Alonzo Rachel (aka Zo) speaking at the Sacramento Tea Party protest

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Regarding President Obama’s comment about his pay-grade. He’s since received a promotion and his pay-grade has increased. Now he’s made up his mind and spreading hs views from his new grade. (Of course he really had made up his mind before that, but it was good campaign rhetoric).

    Like

  2. Thanks for posting that about the Guardasil vaccine. Our pediatrician has been pressuring us to let him give it to her daughter since she was 10 (she’s now 12). Thus far, we’ve refused. He got pretty nasty about it last year, too. I will print this out and hand it to him at next month’s appointment.

    Like

  3. I found the whole Gardasil campaign to be disgusting… Merck ran ads for months about how you need to get checked for cervical cancer (while never mentioning who was actually producing the ads), then overnight they switched to “You must get vaccinated with Gardasil so you don’t get that horrible cervical cancer you’ve heard so much about lately!”

    I’m all for preventing cancer – don’t get me wrong. But the ads never once mentioned that the primary way one gets cervical cancer is through sexual activity with someone else who carries the virus. And even on the Gardasil website, there’s only a brief mention of sexual activity being the main cause, and it’s buried deep within the website.

    Deceptive advertising all around.

    Like

  4. Thanks for the quote/link, Neil. As one of your alleged “sources” accused of “doctoring data” by Mr. Ed Farrell, I felt I just had to respond to him at PLB and at his own blog. Isn’t it amazing how that pot calls this kettle black?

    Here is the cut-paste of that response. Keep up the good work, Neil.
    Blessings,
    Annie B.

    Hi, Ed Darrell. Apparently this Simpson person linked and quoted to my original post over at Prolifeblogs.com, from the looks of things. I don’t have a great deal of time to respond, unfortunately, but I do think you miss some things. I did in fact link to the CDC website where it does point out exactly what you pointed out. I take what the CDC says with a grain or two of salt, however, and you choose not to.

    Also the CDC page I quoted was “last modified: April 10, 2009” not “10-22-08” as was the PDF file you linked to.

    You make no mention or acknowledgement either of the NVIC evaluation of the VAERS data as given in the NVIC report of February 2009.

    You make no mention of the severe underreporting and the fact there are “no sanctions for failure to report” adverse reactions to the VAERS, as also found by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, the FDA, and in a published, peer-reviewed study by Rosenthal & Chen who also evaluated a second “passive” surveillance system called “Monitoring System for Adverse Events Following Immunization” and concluded that “The significant underreporting of known outcomes, together with the nonspecific nature of most adverse event reports, highlights the limitations of passive surveillance systems in assessing the incidence of vaccine adverse events.” It would seem the VAERS hasn’t changed much since that study in 1995 either.

    This is what the FDA wrote in the footnoted document about AE reporting (Adverse Event):

    “Reaching a firm conclusion about the relationship between exposure to a medical product and the occurrence of an adverse event can be difficult. In one study, clinical pharmacologists and treating physicians showed complete agreement less than half the time when determining whether medication, alcohol or “recreational” drug use had caused hospitalization (29).”

    I could go on. The point is, the CDC cannot tell you or me anything with absolute certainty as they don’t have the whole truth and they never will as these are passive, voluntary reporting systems.

    You take the CDC’s statement wholly on faith when it is clearly not right to do so.

    Yet you state on your blog post that “I’m a big fan of getting the facts before making claims.”

    Why don’t you hold the CDC’s feet to that same fire? Instead you yourself ignore some critical facts (only some of which are presented in this comment) and assume the CDC is “right” to claim that “There was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine” when boodles of other scientists, the FDA, Johns Hopkins included, all say that what “data” the CDC has at all is nowhere near conclusive, complete or even accurate.

    I have another question for you, Ed. You state in your blog something else very interesting:

    “Don’t you think that, in blaming deaths on a dosage of a vaccine, one should not count deaths to people who did not get the vaccine? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for two years, though the data are freely available?”

    I agree that no one should count a car accident death as a Gardasil death, nor should they count it if the woman did not receive the vaccine.

    But have you made your same anger and logic to bear on Planned Parenthood and its “research” lapdog Allan Guttmacher Institute, plus the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and the AMA and many other so-called “scientists” when they include the 1997 Melbye (or Danish) study as part of their “proof” that abortion does NOT increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer?

    Because that is exactly what they’re doing, because the Melbye study did the exact same thing you state that anti-Gardasil study did.

    That study was severely criticized at least twice in the New England Journal of Medicine, for its errors of misclassification and data adjustment. [Joel Brind & Vernon Chinchilli, Letter, ”Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer,” 336 New England Journal of Medicine (1997) 1834-35] and by Katrina Armstrong in February of 2000, [Armstrong (2000) NEJM 342:564-71].

    The most glaringly obvious objection to Melbye:
    “Melbye misclassified 60,000 women who’d had abortions as not having had them.”

    Yet the whole pro-choice and pro-abortion world still stands by that study. Go search for it, it’s still mentioned on Planned Parenthood’s website.

    Here’s more of the stupid science put forth by that Melbye study.

    Have you taken all those groups to task, Ed? You should, if you really believe in outing the scientific truth, the whole truth.

    If you don’t, then I can say to you, “Don’t you think that, in ‘disproving’ breast cancer risk from abortion, one should not count decreased breast cancer risk among people who did not have an abortion? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for [many more than] two years, though the data are freely available?”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s