Talk:Andrew Moulden

Singular/Singularly
Singular great implies its his one great discovery, singularly great implies that his discovery is of singular greatness, having reviewed three dictionaries each one includes examples of singularly modifying adjectives. tmtoulouse 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for actually researching it! 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy nutjob! (I mean the writer of this article.) All dismissive. Nothing of use anywhere. It's not establishment, but still might have something there. I'm not sure how 9/11 truth is relevant. Even so, he wouldn't be the only one, in that case, as there are US generals, military, ex-CIA asking the same questions as many sensible Americans are about it too. Anyway, I guess peer reviewed would be the next step. We'll see how the vaccines work out. They start up this week. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 204.191.187.57 / talk / contribs
 * Kindly cease complaining about the content of the article unless you are attempting to point out a factual error in it. 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fun link
Here. So I don't forget about it, some nice stuff to mine out of that. Particularly liked the "Newtonian theory of disease" crap. tmtoulouse 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"esteemed person"
You are very biased and as such are not fit to write a review on such an esteemed person. Please list your criteria and I may let this stay posted, or I'll have them notified and have it removed! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 99.245.244.45 / talk / contribs
 * Been getting some random drive-bys on this so I checked it out, up in my region at least we are number one hit for the guy on google, what about other regions? tmtoulouse 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're top for co.uk. Mostly likely because there's no WP article at all. 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) We're #2 here in Minnesota. 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which can be said for just about every article we are top for, no? tmtoulouse 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Water supplement
The hell is he selling? I cant figure it out...tmtoulouse 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More stuff to parse later. tmtoulouse 05:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Quack is the one who wrote the 'definition'
Andrew Moulden NEVER denied germ theory. His work, while not conventional and sometimes at odds with other anti vaccine advocates, is reasonable and well researched. There are a string of INDEPENDENT researchers that have validated the basic premise that vaccines are harmful. From Len Horowitz (hardly a crank) to Andrew Wakefield and others. And before any jumping on the 'Wakefield was discredited bandwagon, his WORK was never discredited. He was personally attacked and had his license revoked for the unholy crime of referring his patients to specialists when he didn't know the answers. This was deemed to be somehow bad medicine. The pharmacuetical machine does not tolerate dissent. Many doctors who question vaccines get discredited and have licenses revoked. Does this mean that they are bad doctors or does it mean the the pharmacuetical industry wields too much influence over licensing and medical research as a whole? I would love to show you all of the double-blind placebo studies of vaccines and for the associated additives, mercury, formalahyde, polysorbate 80, squalene, among others. Are ready? Here they are.... NONE. Prove me wrong and find one.

Mouldens primary hypothosis is that vaccines cause micro-arterial blockages that cause ischemic events which leave no evidence after clearing because the blockages are caused by white blood cells which disipate after the damage has occured, but not yet outwardly symptomatic. He never said that vaccines cause colds, flu, or any other bacterial or viral infections. They can, as evidenced by the recent outbreak of mumps in the New York, New Jersey area where CNN reported accurately that 87% of those stricken had received their full vaccinations with boosters. The inescapable truth is that the vaccines in this case at best did nothing to protect the population, and at worst increased the likelihood of contracting the disease itself. But that is not a rejection of germ theory. In fact, the article as posted could be constued as libelous and slanderous. It would be up to Moulden himself to address those issues.


 * Typical Gish gallop, just toss out as much unsubstantiated BS as you possibly can and hope something sticks. We can pull out a few of your claims like that Wakefield's work wasn't discredited. This is absurd. His original study had terrible methodology which lead to invalid results and has been dissected many times, and was part of his trial in the UK. The simple fact that his results failed replication discredits them as well even if the original work was not deeply, deeply flawed in its most basic methods and statistics.


 * Are you really claiming that there are no phase III studies for vaccines? Really? tmtoulouse 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, Wakefield's study was discredited. He was found to have fabricated results to fit his thesis (and, troll that you are, I must commend you for leading me to that dead link in the Wakefield article). As to your concerns over the other terrible toxins: You might be due for some not-so-respectful insolence on the subjects of formaldehyde and polysorbate 80. At least you showed some self-restraint and didn't claim that there's antifreeze in vaccines.


 * Oh yes, and thanks for throwing a libel threat (rather hard to charge someone with slander on the basis of text - clearly you are no more expert in law than in medicine), that favorite of cranks since Uri Geller. Remember, the truth is always a defense to defamation. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药，和那个不是医药. 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Legit degrees?
So, the article says that he has a BA, PHD and MD. Are those legitimate degrees, or did he give them to himself or did he get them at a diploma mill?

Died Nov 5th 2013
I think he died last year. Need to find a better source maybe and past tense this. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)