A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nothing is ruined for me.

Only because you are missing out. I'm sure you'll do just fine without this knowledge.

I get that you don't fully understand how his observations can be correct, but by jumping to conclusions you are cutting yourself off from any further investigation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I haven't jumped to any conclusions, I have reached conclusions.

And your conclusions are wrong. It's messed up!

You are too confident in yourself and those in here to make this kind of determination

.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are too confident in Lessans and various crackpots to make any determinations of your own.

I can't even address this it's so slanted and judgmental.

Oh my gosh, how wrong you are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We'll see. Only time will tell, to use a vapid phrase you understand.

True.

The audacity and self-righteousness that you continue to display is amazing to me, especially when you still have no idea why this law is not a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans reasoning, as presented, is fallacious. You have been unable to refute the charge of modal fallacy.

Yes I have. The definition you are using is a strawman. I agree with the idea that a choice, before it is made, is not necessary. You are using this to conclude that because it's not a necessary choice while a person is still contemplating, determinism is a modal fallacy. This is false, but for some reason you are blocked. Lessans' definition, which is more useful because it reflects what is going on in reality, shows exactly why the conventional definition of hard determinism has caused confusion. Just because a choice is not written in stone up until the moment it is made, does not prove that free will exists. The naturalists also state that although we, as agents, can make choices (which implies that we are not robots programmed to react in a predictable way), our choices are part of the inextricable causal chain of life which is a mixture of our environment (all the antecedent events that have led up to the present moment), and our heredity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your audacity and self-righteousness in blaming others for your and Lessans failings is amazing to me.

I have not failed. And I'm only blaming you because of your insistence that Lessans is wrong when you really don't know. It unnerves me to no end.

[ceptimus]

I'm becoming weary of this vaccine discussion.

peacegirl, I suggest if you want to inject some new life into this thread, you should now move onto the topic of denying anthropogenic global warming. There are loads of websites where you could find material to support your new theme.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's from the World Health Organization. Why do you think the WHO is lying?

You don't believe it because you don't want to. You are simply dismissing evidence you don't agree with...as is your MO. If an anti-vaxxer asserted without data that 100,000 kids died of vaccines you'd believe it without any thought.

I'm trying to get objective data. Maybe this organization is well-intentioned but their statistics are off. I have read where the diagnosis of measles has not always been correct. Or maybe they have an agenda. I don't know what that agenda could be, but it has been shown over and over again that the most respectable organizations do, in fact, lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I'm becoming weary of this vaccine discussion.

peacegirl, I suggest if you want to inject some new life into this thread, you should now move onto the topic of denying anthropogenic global warming. There are loads of websites where you could find material to support your new theme.

I am so tired of this vaccine debate you have no idea. But I have learned a lot too, and now I can pass what I have learned to my son and my other children when they become parents. I am definitely eager to leave this topic. As far as anthropogenic global warming, I believe, as stewards of our planet, we have to get along with nature, not try to master it. I feel that we cannot afford to ignore the warning signs. Even if it turns out that man had nothing to do with it, we would still be ahead of the game by creating a much cleaner and healthier environment for all of the earth's inhabitants, but if we don't change our ways and we had everything to do with it, we will lose at a great cost to all living creatures and the Earth itself. Do you agree?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to get objective data...

No you're not. You're quite openly and deliberately rejecting data you don't like and then relying on nothing but your own mere speculation to rationalize this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're quite openly and deliberately rejecting data you don't like and then relying on nothing but your own mere speculation to rationalize this.

I maintain that researchers do not have enough data regarding this new vaccine schedule to know whether they are reaching a tipping point that could trigger significant changes in the brains of some children. Nuff said on this subject.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I maintain that researchers do not have enough data regarding this new vaccine schedule to know whether they are reaching a tipping point that could trigger significant changes in the brains of some children. Nuff said on this subject.

Non sequitur.

You just lied about trying to get objective data.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My children got chicken pox very early, and they were fine. I got measles, and I am fine (although I know Spacemonkey would question that ). Why do they need a series of vaccines all given at the same time and in such frequency, which is not a natural exposure, if their bodies can do a better job at immunizing them long term by natural means?

Being infected with chickenpox leads to shingles. So the natural immunity has a nasty tradeoff.

My uncle had measles and developed a speech impediment and has learning disabilities as a result of his high fever.

[LadyShea]

Air does not promote disease. Toxic particles in air may lead to inflammatory conditions.

Air is everything in gaseous form that surrounds us and that we breathe. It can absolutely cause or exacerbate illness. If there are toxins in it, then the toxins are also air. You used the example of ozone, which is very toxic. Ozone is part of air. It may also be one of the key factors in the increase in asthma

It may be hard to imagine that pollution could be invisible, but ozone is. The most widespread pollutant in the U.S. is also one of the most dangerous.

Scientists have studied the effects of ozone on health for decades. Hundreds of research studies have confirmed that ozone harms people at levels currently found in the United States. In the last few years, we’ve learned that it can also be deadly.

New York researchers looking at hospital records for children’s asthma found that the risk of admission to hospitals for asthma increased with chronic exposure to ozone. Younger children and children from low income families were more likely to need hospital admissions even during the same time periods than other children.19

California researchers analyzing data from their long-term Southern California Children’s Health Study found that some children with certain genes were more likely to develop asthma as adolescents in response to the variations in ozone levels in their communities.20

Studies link lower birth weight and decreased lung function in newborns to ozone levels in their community.21 This research provides increasing evidence that ozone may harm newborns.

American Lung Association State of the Air 2013 - Ozone Pollution

Are you considering air to be only oxygen? Because that is wrong.

[Qingdai]

Yeah if air were only oxygen, we'd all be dead.

[LadyShea]

The only way to come close to knowing the impact of vaccines on the health of our children is to compare the unvaccinated with the vaccinated in similar living conditions so as to rule out other contributing factors that could contaminate the study. There are going to be no perfect studies, but because there are more and more people within our culture that are not vaccinating, shouldn't scientists start doing extensive tests on these individuals? The question is: Why aren't they?

The survey you keep posting about, and all the websites etc., indicate that non-vaxxing parents don't trust and don't use mainstream medical science. We've also seen that anti-vax doctors and scientists don't do much rigorous testing...preferring surveys and critiques of mainstream research to performing and publishing their own "extensive" testing.

Do you think non-vaxxing parents would be likely to participate in medical tests if the researchers were mainstream? Do you think they'd trust the results? What if the results showed that there were no differences, or that vaccinated children fared better in some ways? Would they trust those results? Would you?

If the non-vaxxers did have a change of MO and did the study, do you think the vaxxing parents would participate in that study and that mainstream scientists would trust those results?

What are the chances of these two groups working together effectively at all in any capacity? Pretty much nil.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Non sequitur.

You just lied about trying to get objective data.

End of discussion Spacemonkey. You can think I'm a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My children got chicken pox very early, and they were fine. I got measles, and I am fine (although I know Spacemonkey would question that ). Why do they need a series of vaccines all given at the same time and in such frequency, which is not a natural exposure, if their bodies can do a better job at immunizing them long term by natural means?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being infected with chickenpox leads to shingles. So the natural immunity has a nasty tradeoff.

Is there an association between chickenpox vaccine and an increase in shingles?

Yes. In 2005, Gary Goldman, PhD, was among the first researchers to publish an analysis of the mass use of chickenpox vaccine by children in the U.S. since 1995. His conclusion was that, by limiting the circulation of wild type Varicella Zoster virus in the population through mass vaccination, there is limited asymptomatic boosting of natural chickenpox immunity among adults, who had recovered from chickenpox as children. This would, in turn, cause an epidemic of shingles. (International Journal of Toxicology 2005; 24(4): 205-213. The Case against Universal Varicella Vaccination )

In 2008 the Health Protection Agency (HPA), an independent organization formed by the government of the United Kingdom in 2003, published new modeling that confirmed that mass use of chickenpox vaccine would lead to an increase in shingles despite the shingles vaccine.

The HPA estimated that, while mass vaccination would reduce the incidence of chickenpox in children, there is a projected increase of over 20% in the incidence of shingles in adults. The HPA confirmed that this projected increase in shingles is because adults are no longer coming in contact with natural chickenpox cases due to vaccine acquired immunity among children. In addition, studies from countries that routinely vaccinate children against chickenpox, such as the U.S., demonstrate that there is an increase in shingles in unvaccinated persons, who have not had chickenpox or the chickenpox vaccine.

A study in 2002 confirmed that adults exposed to natural chickenpox disease were protected from developing shingles and that there is concern that mass vaccination against chickenpox will cause future epidemics of shingles among more than 50 percent of Americans aged 10 to 44 years.
There are also reports that young children and teenagers, who have gotten chickenpox vaccine, are experiencing shingles as well.

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Shingles.aspx

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My uncle had measles and developed a speech impediment and has learning disabilities as a result of his high fever.

It all boils down to the benefit/risk ratio, and the doctor of the new world would never tell a patient what to do for fear of giving the wrong advice. Today, doctors are expected to agree with the APA's recommendations, but parents are beginning to challenge this. I believe this will eventually lead to an acceptance of a more lenient and personalized vaccine schedule.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The survey you keep posting about, and all the websites etc., indicate that non-vaxxing parents don't trust and don't use mainstream medical science. We've also seen that anti-vax doctors and scientists don't do much rigorous testing...preferring surveys and critiques of mainstream research to performing and publishing their own "extensive" testing.

Do you think non-vaxxing parents would be likely to participate in medical tests if the researchers were mainstream? Do you think they'd trust the results? What if the results showed that there were no differences, or that vaccinated children fared better in some ways? Would they trust those results? Would you?

I would have no problem if a study was conclusive, but the problem is that many studies are inconclusive therefore their conclusions can be misleading. Did you read the article that I posted twice on how there could be a synergistic effect of these vaccines when combined that can lead to problems that would not be picked up from the study?

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller neilzmiller@gmail.com
Independent researcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Gary S Goldman
Independent computer scientist, Pearblossom, California, USA
Abstract

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early...60327111407644


Also, if all of these studies are supposed to make someone feel confident that vaccines are virtually risk free, then why do so many drugs put on the market and approved by the FDA, later get recalled due to nasty side effects that are oftentimes lethal? Is trusting the FDA's studies a good thing? I don't think so. I don't know about you, but I do not want to be a guinea pig nor any members of my family.

Again In 2012, Pradaxa (Dabigatran) Had Dubious Distinction Of Being Ranked First For Direct FDA Reports Of Adverse Events

(Posted by Tom Lamb at DrugInjuryWatch.com)

The October 2013 edition of ISMP QuarterWatch, Data from 2012 Quarter 4 and Annual Report, let us know that adverse drug events (ADEs) reports submitted directly to the FDA by consumers or patients and health professionals identified two anticoagulants, Pradaxa (dabigatran) and Coumadin (warfarin), as the most frequent suspect drugs for the year.

As regards Pradaxa, in particular, we get these rather interesting facts from this latest edition of the well-regarded ISMP QuarterWatch publication:

As in our previous analysis, reported [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] adverse event cases were more likely to result in death, accounting for 18% of cases, compared to 6.5% deaths for warfarin and 7.2% for rivaroxaban.
The agency took several additional actions to reassure doctors and patients that growing number of adverse event reports did not signal an important risk....
... in November 2012, saying that a new study in insurance claims data and electronic health records indicated “bleeding rates associated with new use of Pradaxa do not appear to be higher than bleeding rates associated with new use of warfarin.” However, the drug safety communication announcement provided few details about the actual study, omitting major facts such as how many cases it had actually examined....
... in April of 2013 when the FDA Office Director who had initially approved [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] -- Ellis F. Unger -- wrote a “Perspective” article in the New England Journal of Medicine, discounting the postmarketing reports, summarizing the unpublished study in electronic health records, and concluding, “We believe that [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] provides an important health benefit when used as directed.” In this unusual editorial the FDA did not reveal how many adverse event reports it had received about [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] or warfarin, but nevertheless dismissed them, saying “the large number of reported cases of bleeding provides a salient example of stimulated reporting.” However, the health insurance and medical record data on which the FDA had relied proved to be unusually sparse.
And, last but not least, the October 2013 QuarterWatch article points out this rather strange FDA action as regards Pradaxa:

In April 2013, the FDA required an unusual Boxed Warning -- normally an alert to a dire drug risk -- stating that stopping the drug might increase the risk of stroke, but neglecting to mention that stopping [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] would also reduce the risk of severe hemorrhage.

But then again, perhaps that "unususual Black Box" is not so strange, given that:

The FDA actions since [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] was approved in 2010 have been almost entirely supportive of [Pradaxa (dabigatran)] and apparently intended to discount safety concerns.

We commend the QuarterWatch Project Team -- Thomas J. Moore, Michael R. Cohen, Curt D. Furberg, and Donald R. Mattison -- for putting this spotlight on the FDA as regards the still-emerging drug safety issue concerning Pradaxa and serious bleeding events.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the non-vaxxers did have a change of MO and did the study, do you think the vaxxing parents would participate in that study and that mainstream scientists would trust those results?

What are the chances of these two groups working together effectively at all in any capacity? Pretty much nil.

You are probably right, but this does not mean the anti-vaxers are any less scientifically inclined, which is your assumption. They are concerned that science, in their effort to find answers, may not answer many of the lingering questions that still remain. Could it be that these studies are not as reliable as they appear to be?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

End of discussion Spacemonkey. You can think that I'm a liar.

We do. That's what happens when you lie. People will think of you as a liar.

[LadyShea]

Gary Goldman is a computer scientist who, for some reason, publishes research almost exclusively about varicella vaccines. Why should he be considered an authority on medical issues?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We do. That's what happens when you lie. People will think of you as a liar.

Cool! I have no problem with that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Gary Goldman is a computer scientist who, for some reason, publishes research almost exclusively about varicella vaccines. Why should he be considered an authority on medical issues?

That's great. Then at least we can look at the risk factor in this one vaccine. To compare one vaccine to a combination risk is not scientific. For those who are suspicious, it is a judgement call. They need to use their own judgment, and no authority should have the power to take that away from a parent who loves their child more than life itself and is doing what they believe is in their child's best interest, period.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Gary Goldman is a computer scientist who, for some reason, publishes research almost exclusively about varicella vaccines. Why should he be considered an authority on medical issues?

BULLSHIT LADYSHEA. MY FATHER WAS NOT A PHYSICIST, BUT HE MADE A DISCOVERY, AND I DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THAT INTELLIGENT. I'M SORRY TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT I AM THAT MAD AT YOU FOR USING FALSE STANDARDS TO DETERMINE TRUTH FROM FICTION. I have no interest in defending my statement, so don't even reply, thank you very much.

[Vivisectus]

no authority should have the power to take that away from a parent who loves their child more than life itself and is doing what they believe is in their child's best interest, period.

Really? So the state should not interfere in murder-suicides where kids are involved? Good god you say stupid things sometimes.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BULLSHIT LADYSHEA. MY FATHER WAS NOT A PHYSICIST, BUT HE MADE A DISCOVERY, AND I DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THAT INTELLIGENT. I'M SORRY TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT I AM THAT MAD AT YOU FOR USING FALSE STANDARDS TO DETERMINE TRUTH FROM FICTION. I have no interest in defending my statement, so don't even reply, thank you very much.

quoted for future reference and luls-mining

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We do. That's what happens when you lie. People will think of you as a liar.

Cool!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

quoted for future reference and luls-mining

I do not care what you use for lulz Vivisectus, the point being LadyShea is not the most knowledgeable person in the world (she tries to be objective but that does not mean she knows that the studies are flawless [which she is depending on]). She then uses these findings to discredit Lessans' findings. Do you not see a problem with this? She would never attempt to dispute Einstein's findings, would she? That was a rhetorical question. I am not interested in your answer, so please refrain from giving it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? So the state should not interfere in murder-suicides where kids are involved? Good god you say stupid things sometimes.

We were talking about vaccines. Stop trying to make me look foolish Vivisectus, which will bite you in the end.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not care what you use for lulz Vivisectus, the point being LadyShea is not the most knowledgeable person in the world (she tries to be objective but that does not mean she knows what sh'es talking about), that she can dispute Lessans' findings. She would never attempt to dispute Einstein's findings, would she? That was a rhetorical question. I am not interested in your answer, so please refrain from giving it.

I love the double standard. No-one can point out that your father did not know the first thing about subjects that were relevant to what he was trying to talk about... but in order to criticize your father, you need to be the most knowledgeable person in the world!