Jock wants $5,000 money down before he will even consider anyone for possible inclusion.
He then wants the candidate to read a whole shelf of books at their expense. There will then will be a series of tests and oral examinations. If the candidate makes an inapropriate response, then they lose the $5,000 and are inelgible for inclusion.
The candidate's answers to various questions can be legally shared with the public. Jock could spin it as he sees best.
At one time I thought this challenge reasonable. Now that I see the nature of the hoops, I would discourage anyone from pursuing this man's offer or even debating him.
There are very, very few people I would refuse to even debate. This man is one of them.
This individual has created a public challenge to doctors who support the general safety of current vaccines. No problem there...
This public challenge is echoed by concerned parents and others, who want to know why the docs don't accept such a challenge. No problem here either....
But the concerned people, don't seem to notice the ridiculous list of hoops they have to jump through. They could lose $5,000 bucks easily, since Jock gets to invent the standards the candidate must conform to before they get to be in the public trial. This is not an fair trial in the way Jock presents it. He simplifies what a candidate must...significantly.
I would not want myself or anyone to enter into a debate, where this person would have the floor to advertise his misleading challenge.
Sometimes, debate does more harm than good, if it serves as advertising for a misleading idea. This is such a case.
"I would not want myself or anyone to enter into a debate, where this person would have the floor to advertise his misleading challenge."
you know...... YOU might be willing to give up 75000$ (!!!!!) because you won't jump though a few hoops (oh, boo hoo.... no free money for drinking the safe liquid?)
Listen. what you're assuming it TOTAL bullshit, you are clearly lying. IF, and I stress "if" the only reason NO one took the challenge, it's not because there is not an MD who could use an extra 75,000$, and who would be willing to do a small amount of work and certain tests to advance scientific research in a certain area, like the cause of these *cough* POISONS *cough*.
It's because they *know* it's poison that no one takes the challenge... if you think for over a minute at a time, you realize not every MD can pass up 75,000$ just because they'd have to do some work.
Once again....
You are a LIAR! And you've been called on your lies, now I'm hoping you'll respond...
Hmmmm.... guess I missed one. I hope Eric stumbles across this sometime.
Hello again Eric,
"you know...... YOU might be willing to give up 75000$ (!!!!!) because you won't jump though a few hoops (oh, boo hoo.... no free money for drinking the safe liquid?)"
Well I certainly could use the money and I imagine some doctors could as well. But if I am going to risk $5,000 of my personal money, I want some some assurance that I am dealing with a situation wherein if I play by all the rules, I have a chance to both win the money and do some good.
After reviewing the rules, Jock has devised, I am not sure that even if I were a doctor I would have a chance.
To get that money, the one applying must first fork over several thousand dollars. Then they have to read a pile of alterntive medical books on anti-vaccination.
Then they must be tested by a panel Jock selects. No abitration. If they don't pass the panel's approval, then they lose the money they put down, and don't get the chance to take the drink.
It seems quite extraordinary. It seems as if Jock wants to significantly stack the deck agaisnt the possibility that anyone would take his challenge. Now why should that be?
"Listen. what you're assuming it TOTAL bullshit, you are clearly lying."
Really? You have my full attention, please explain my ethical failure Eric.
"IF, and I stress "if" the only reason NO one took the challenge, it's not because there is not an MD who could use an extra 75,000$, and who would be willing to do a small amount of work and certain tests to advance scientific research in a certain area, like the cause of these *cough* POISONS *cough*."
Is that it, they really know its poison so no one will play ball. Or is it because they could lose $5,000 based on a test that looks like it was designed to make them lose. Also, how eaxrtly do you think reading an anti-vax series of books and being quizzed by alternative medcical practitioners is goinf to further the research. I would be quite interested in hearing the explanation.
"You are a LIAR! And you've been called on your lies, now I'm hoping you'll respond..."
Well its good to call liars on there lies. However, isn't it generally more typical to first showed how the other person lied? If you haven't done that Eric, why then that wouldn't be exposing a liar at all. That would be libel.
Thank you for your time.
Ginger, I expect that you receive these posts as emails. Please if Eric shows back up, let me know. I would hate to have the chance to miss an exchange with him.
3:37 PM
$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives
Jock Doubleday, director of the California non-profit corporation Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc., has offered $75,000 to the first medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO who publicly drinks a mixture of standard vaccine additives.
The additives would be the same as those contained in the vaccines recommended for a 6-year-old according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and the dose would be body-weight calibrated. It would include, but not be limited to:
* Thimerosal (a mercury derivative) * Ethylene glycol (antifreeze) * Phenol (a disinfectant dye) * Aluminum * Benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant) * Formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant)
On August 1, 2007, if no one has taken the challenge, the offer will be increased to $90,000 and will increase at a rate of $5,000 per month until someone accepts.
Ojai, California -- On January 29, 2001, I offered $20,000 to the first U.S.-licensed medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO to publicly drink a mixture of standard vaccine additive ingredients:
On August 1, 2006, I increased the offer to $75,000 (see below):
The new offer had no takers.
Therefore . . .
as of June 1, 2007, the $75,000 vaccine offer will increase to $80,000;
as of July 1, 2007, the vaccine offer will increase to $85,000;
as of August 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $90,000;
as of September 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $95,000;
as of October 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $100,000;
as of November 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $105,000;
as of December 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $110,000;
as of January 1, 2008, the offer will increase to $115,000.
The offer will increase $5,000 per month, in perpetuity, until an M.D. or pharmaceutical company CEO, or any of the 14 relevant members of the ACIP (see below), agree to drink a body-weight calibrated dose of the vaccine additives M.D.s routinely inject into children in the name of health.
This offer, dated April 25, 2007, has no expiration date unless and until superceded by a similar offer of higher remuneration.
In health,
Jock Doubleday Director Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc. A California 501(c)3 Nonprofit Corporation
Dr. Mercola's comments:
Not surprisingly, this offer has been on the table since 2001, but no one has been willing to take that toxic chemical cocktail -- except for the children who innocently go in for their routine vaccinations. With the average amount of loans for medical students now well in excess of $100,000 you might have thought some doctor would have tried to cash n on this so they could accelerate the payment of their student loans.
In addition to the vaccine additives listed above, others can include ammonium sulfate, amphotericin B, pig blood, rabbit brain, monkey kidney, betapropiolactone, tri(n)butylphosphate, and a laundry list of other chemicals. The mercury-based preservative thimerosal, in particular, is dangerous. Mercury is a poison and potent neurotoxin. Injecting it into a child, whose nervous system is rapidly developing, can have terrible consequences.
From the evidence I have reviewed and my own clinical experience it is clear that mercury is one of the reasons autism skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Autism has started to decrease now that some the vaccines have eliminated mercury, but be wary; many vaccines still do contain thimerosal, no matter what you may have heard.
And even those vaccines without thimerosal still contain an incredible number of dangerous chemicals. When the mercury is removed, it is typically replaced with another toxic additive that is frequently just as health-harming. The aluminum hydroxide used in many vaccines has been linked to symptoms associated with Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's. Phenols, methanol, isopropyl, and 2-pheoxyethanol are other ingredients which are corrosive or toxic.
The bottom line is, if you are a parent and are considering vaccinating your child, please read up on the potentially devastating side effects of vaccines before doing so. It could mean the difference between life and death. Avoid the fear mongering and take some time to read ALL sides of the issue, not just the propaganda conventional pediatrician will present to you. Most educated parents that I know that have done a careful analysis of the data invariably chose not to vaccinate their children.
posted by Ginger Taylor at 3:05 PM on Jul 19, 2007
"$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives"
5 Comments -
There is more that needs to be said here.
Jock wants $5,000 money down before he will even consider anyone for possible inclusion.
He then wants the candidate to read a whole shelf of books at their expense. There will then will be a series of tests and oral examinations. If the candidate makes an inapropriate response, then they lose the $5,000 and are inelgible for inclusion.
The candidate's answers to various questions can be legally shared with the public. Jock could spin it as he sees best.
At one time I thought this challenge reasonable. Now that I see the nature of the hoops, I would discourage anyone from pursuing this man's offer or even debating him.
There are very, very few people I would refuse to even debate. This man is one of them.
9:28 PM
There are very, very few people I would refuse to even debate. This man is one of them.
Why... what do you know about him?
9:51 PM
This individual has created a public challenge to doctors who support the general safety of current vaccines. No problem there...
This public challenge is echoed by concerned parents and others, who want to know why the docs don't accept such a challenge. No problem here either....
But the concerned people, don't seem to notice the ridiculous list of hoops they have to jump through. They could lose $5,000 bucks easily, since Jock gets to invent the standards the candidate must conform to before they get to be in the public trial. This is not an fair trial in the way Jock presents it. He simplifies what a candidate must...significantly.
I would not want myself or anyone to enter into a debate, where this person would have the floor to advertise his misleading challenge.
Sometimes, debate does more harm than good, if it serves as advertising for a misleading idea. This is such a case.
12:47 AM
"I would not want myself or anyone to enter into a debate, where this person would have the floor to advertise his misleading challenge."
you know...... YOU might be willing to give up 75000$ (!!!!!) because you won't jump though a few hoops (oh, boo hoo.... no free money for drinking the safe liquid?)
Listen. what you're assuming it TOTAL bullshit, you are clearly lying. IF, and I stress "if" the only reason NO one took the challenge, it's not because there is not an MD who could use an extra 75,000$, and who would be willing to do a small amount of work and certain tests to advance scientific research in a certain area, like the cause of these *cough* POISONS *cough*.
It's because they *know* it's poison that no one takes the challenge... if you think for over a minute at a time, you realize not every MD can pass up 75,000$ just because they'd have to do some work.
Once again....
You are a LIAR!
And you've been called on your lies, now I'm hoping you'll respond...
I'm waiting.
10:32 PM
Hmmmm.... guess I missed one. I hope Eric stumbles across this sometime.
Hello again Eric,
"you know...... YOU might be willing to give up 75000$ (!!!!!) because you won't jump though a few hoops (oh, boo hoo.... no free money for drinking the safe liquid?)"
Well I certainly could use the money and I imagine some doctors could as well. But if I am going to risk $5,000 of my personal money, I want some some assurance that I am dealing with a situation wherein if I play by all the rules, I have a chance to both win the money and do some good.
After reviewing the rules, Jock has devised, I am not sure that even if I were a doctor I would have a chance.
To get that money, the one applying must first fork over several thousand dollars. Then they have to read a pile of alterntive medical books on anti-vaccination.
Then they must be tested by a panel Jock selects. No abitration. If they don't pass the panel's approval, then they lose the money they put down, and don't get the chance to take the drink.
It seems quite extraordinary. It seems as if Jock wants to significantly stack the deck agaisnt the possibility that anyone would take his challenge. Now why should that be?
"Listen. what you're assuming it TOTAL bullshit, you are clearly lying."
Really? You have my full attention, please explain my ethical failure Eric.
"IF, and I stress "if" the only reason NO one took the challenge, it's not because there is not an MD who could use an extra 75,000$, and who would be willing to do a small amount of work and certain tests to advance scientific research in a certain area, like the cause of these *cough* POISONS *cough*."
Is that it, they really know its poison so no one will play ball. Or is it because they could lose $5,000 based on a test that looks like it was designed to make them lose. Also, how eaxrtly do you think reading an anti-vax series of books and being quizzed by alternative medcical practitioners is goinf to further the research. I would be quite interested in hearing the explanation.
"You are a LIAR!
And you've been called on your lies, now I'm hoping you'll respond..."
Well its good to call liars on there lies. However, isn't it generally more typical to first showed how the other person lied? If you haven't done that Eric, why then that wouldn't be exposing a liar at all. That would be libel.
Thank you for your time.
Ginger, I expect that you receive these posts as emails. Please if Eric shows back up, let me know. I would hate to have the chance to miss an exchange with him.
3:37 PM