hi ALL.
Thanks to everyone contributing their views on this thread. You have given a far better articulation of ideas than I could piece together. I had really wound myself into a hole with trying to put it together.
My "debate" is with some potential partners-that-might-be who want to do "cervical cancer screening". Your emails have led to the answers I was looking for. From the hints given in your emails, I can understand the underlying motives of these parties. What I suspect (not yet verified) is they want to use Africans as their guinea pigs for testing or for other allopathic-supporting stats, etc.
You've now given me some "ammunition" to counter with and also firmed up my moral stand on the issue.
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira
Director, Abha Light
visit: www.abhalight.org
tel: +254 20 445-0181 / cells: 0733-895466 / 0723-869133
skype: anandarucira
----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------
"easy access to the world"
Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Re: Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Hi, Didi --
Re your suspicions about using Africans as guinea pigs, did you see (or read) "The Constant Gardener"?
Peace,
Dale
Re your suspicions about using Africans as guinea pigs, did you see (or read) "The Constant Gardener"?
Peace,
Dale
-
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Hi Soroush,
I do not contradict anything you say.
but your statement or that of Coulter was:
"Also based on Harris Coulter's book vaccinations affected the
behaviour of the vaccinated"
Which sounds pretty generalized. In such cases, negative instances are
indeed relevant. If the statement had been "MAY have affected SOME" or
even "affected SOME" the matter would be different.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
I do not contradict anything you say.
but your statement or that of Coulter was:
"Also based on Harris Coulter's book vaccinations affected the
behaviour of the vaccinated"
Which sounds pretty generalized. In such cases, negative instances are
indeed relevant. If the statement had been "MAY have affected SOME" or
even "affected SOME" the matter would be different.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========