A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just as bad. There are bound to be a few bad apples in the bunch, but it still doesn't change the fact that thousands of people are hurt by drugs and surgery every year by the medical profession. They don't get their licenses removed. I wonder why.

Even worse: every year, thousands of people are killed by falling of of bed. And yet bed makers remain in business! I wonder why?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Even worse: every year, thousands of people are killed by falling of of bed. And yet bed makers remain in business! I wonder why?

Falling out of bed is not the responsibility of the manufacturer. Dying of a complication from a drug that was purported to be safe IS the manufacter's responsibility. Who said anything about going out of business? Pharmaceutical companies are big business. The truth is when money is involved, researchers may cut corners by skewing the results in their favor, or by approving the drug too soon where the patient becomes the guinea pig. And the weird thing is they do the opposite for people who have nothing to lose since they are dying; they prevent a person from choosing to try an experimental drug as a last resort. Go figure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nutrition Institute of America, Inc

Gary Null sells nutritional supplements Home | Gary Null Power Foods

LOL, I am sure his "report" was not profit motivated at all

Everyone has to make money LadyShea. So for you to begrudge these people and make the accusation that this is their only motive isn't fair and just shows how biased you really are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's not the only way to come to terms with anything at all. You are positing a faith or religious position. You are absolutely referring to a Being if you are saying that there is "something alongside" or "behind" the Universe.

No, the laws are what Lessans called God, or this amazing mathematical power. You can deny that laws can't be intelligent. I'm not interested in arguing about this. I get comfort in personalizing the word "God." You can tell me it's a religious position. This world is so amazing (especially knowing that this law of our nature is going to deliver us from all evil), that you can't help but be in awe. That's my worldview. It's personal so you don't have to attack it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no chance involved, no accident, those are human concepts because our minds want us to know why. Any epiphenomena is simply the human mind, trying to make sense of things. The Universe is, that's the starting point, there is no before.

The manifestation of God is a secondary phenomenon. When the Golden Age commences, he is using a metaphor that God (this amazing mathamatical power) is the light that is revealed as the evil is burned away. It's not just his way of making sense of the world, as you seem to be implying.

An epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon.

Epiphenomenon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because the image (or pattern) does not get reflected and travel Spacemonkey. You are ignoring his claim.

And with good reason, Lessans claims were nonsense with no proof or foundation at all. Everyone has good reason to ignore his claims. Fictional claims from someones wild imagination should be ignored.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Kind of like how all the evidence that the eyes are sense organs is part of a vast conspiracy by the scientific "establishment," eh?

Lessans never thought that, or said that. He wasn't delusional.

p. 126 The belief in five senses made
it possible to imagine light waves hitting an object and then reflecting
an image to the eyes — for this appears logical.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: I think you'll all enjoy the slide show that is set to this music.

Clair de Lune - YouTube

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Falling out of bed is not the responsibility of the manufacturer. Dying of a complication from a drug that was purported to be safe IS the manufacter's responsibility.

Not necessarily. Some people have adverse reactions to drugs that most others have no problem with due to allergies, or interactions with other drugs, or genetic factors. Often these individual reactions cannot be predicted. Some people take their medications incorrectly or not as prescribed, some abuse them. Each individual case must be looked at and any emerging patterns analyzed to see if it is the drug itself.

Who said anything about going out of business? Pharmaceutical companies are big business. The truth is when money is involved, researchers may cut corners by skewing the results in their favor, or by approving the drug too soon where the patient becomes the guinea pig. And the weird thing is they do the opposite for people who have nothing to lose since they are dying; they prevent a person from choosing to try an experimental drug as a last resort. Go figure.

Experimental drug trials are open to those who meet the criteria for that trial. Do you want drugs tested or don't you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone has to make money LadyShea. So for you to begrudge these people and make the accusation that this is their only motive isn't fair and just shows how biased you really are.

I am not begrudging them making money, I am saying that there is a conflict of interest in this case. The person doing the study/report had a financial incentive for the results and conclusions to read a certain way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Falling out of bed is not the responsibility of the manufacturer. Dying of a complication from a drug that was purported to be safe IS the manufacter's responsibility.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not necessarily. Some people have adverse reactions to drugs that most others have no problem with due to allergies, or interactions with other drugs, or genetic factors. Often these individual reactions cannot be predicted. Some people take their medications incorrectly or not as prescribed, some abuse them. Each individual case must be looked at and any emerging patterns analyzed to see if it is the drug itself.

I'm not talking about the misuse of a drug. That would be the person's responsibility. I'm talking about the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry that puts out drugs on the market that they know have potential problems or that they don't know enough about. It is true that anyone can have an adverse reaction, and this they have to take into account. I'm talking about a drug that they claim is safe which then injures or kills thousands of people. How can anyone trust these individuals when they say a drug is safe and effective?

Who said anything about going out of business? Pharmaceutical companies are big business. The truth is when money is involved, researchers may cut corners by skewing the results in their favor, or by approving the drug too soon where the patient becomes the guinea pig. And the weird thing is they do the opposite for people who have nothing to lose since they are dying; they prevent a person from choosing to try an experimental drug as a last resort. Go figure.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Experimental drug trials are open to those who meet the criteria for that trial. Do you want drugs tested or don't you?

I've read that drugs are often withheld because they haven't gone through enough testing (how ironic), giving the dying person no hope for a cure or a remission.

[peacegirl]

This little pooch is another Minnesota Fats.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

[LadyShea]

I'm talking about the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry that puts out drugs on the market that they know have potential problems or that they don't know enough about.

Do you have any specific examples? Most drugs on the market are safely taken by many times more people than are harmed by the same drug. So you need to be specific.

I've read that drugs are often withheld because they haven't gone through enough testing (how ironic), giving the dying person no hope for a cure or for a remission.

Trials are trials for a reason, they have to test the drugs. Not everyone is a good candidate for every trial.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have any specific examples? Most drugs on the market are safely taken by many times more people than are harmed by the same drug. So you need to be specific.

Celebrex caused heart attacks and it's still on the market. Go to: Drug Injury Watch

I've read that drugs are often withheld because they haven't gone through enough testing (how ironic), giving the dying person no hope for a cure or for a remission.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Trials are trials for a reason, they have to test the drugs. Not everyone is a good candidate for every trial.

The reality, even after testing is done, is that nobody can possibly predict the longterm effects of a drug or combination of drugs on a human body, which is why in the new world people will be free to ingest anything they want, but the doctor will never tell them it's safe because they would not want to assume this responsibility. They will tell their patients everything they know about the drug and what symptoms it alleviates, as well as where they can buy it, but they won't prescribe it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They didn't track this very well.

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. What kind of protection is this?

Deadly Immunity

There's more to that story, that was one man's take on the topic. I don't know how authoritative it is. I will read up on the topic and his report further later on.

[peacegirl]

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

[LadyShea]

How would you know, for sure, if a dog recognized his master on Skype?

[LadyShea]

The reality, even after testing is done, is that nobody can possibly predict the longterm effects of a drug or combination of drugs on a human body, which is why in the new world people will be free to ingest anything they want, but the doctor will never tell them it's safe because they would not want to assume this responsibility.

I have never had any doctor tell me that any treatment, medication or vaccination is risk free. Not once in 43 years. They've never said that any treatments or medications prescribed for my son are risk free.

What has happened, is that they have gone over my history and family history and tried to find the best medication for me.

Just this week I had a severe allergic reaction to insect bites. I had never had any such reaction like that at all before. The urgent care doctor carefully went over all meds I had taken in the past and asked about any reactions and side effects, and went over all my medical history, then gave me a couple of options before we agreed, together, on the treatment I was most comfortable with. This was a walk in clinic, not my regular doctor.

So who exactly are these doctors you think just prescribe things without any thought whatsoever and lie to their patients about their risks? I have never met these horrible people practicing medicine that you seem to think are rampant.

[LadyShea]

Celebrex caused heart attacks and it's still on the market.

Did you read the actual studies and analyze the numbers and factors? I have. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular problems in some people, yes. But that's a far cry from "it causes heart attacks" which is way too large a brush to paint that increased risk with. As I already said, most drugs on the market are safely taken by many times more people than are harmed by the same drug. This is true of Celebrex and even Vioxx which was removed.

Additionally nobody ever has said that Celebrex or any drug is completely safe and risk free for all people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's more to that story, that was one man's take on the topic. I don't know how authoritative it is. I will read up on the topic and his report further later on.

Okay, that was from 2005. The entire study that the thimerosol/autism link was based on was retracted completely in 2010 because Andrew Wakefield was found to have been an unethical researcher. The CDC and other authorities had instituted reduction measures as a precaution, even without corroborating research. So, they didn't fail in their tracking, there was no actual correlation ever found, except in the one very flawed study.

Thimerosal--Does it cause Autism or Aspergers?

The most well-known study of the link between thimerosal and Autism was published by Andrew Wakefield and several other authors in 1998 in The Lancet.

The Lancet is one of the world's best known and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals. No one would expect that a respected journal would publish research that was not ethically conducted. But that's what happened.

The Lancet published a partial retraction of the study because Wakefield had conflicts of interest. In February 2010, The Lancet published a complete retraction when Wakefield's research was found to be unethical. It was found to be unethical because he made changes without the knowledge of the other researchers involved in the study.

But long before the 2010 retraction,

the Public Health Service,
the National Institutes of Health,
the Center for Disease Control (the CDC),
the Health Resources and Services Administration, and
the American Academy of Pediatrics

urged vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as a precautionary measure. And they did. In addition, they asked for and received more studies of the possible links between thimerosal and Autism, but no link was found.

So when your pediatrician tells you that there's no link between mercury in vaccines and regressive Autism, it's because Wakefield's study that linked thimerosal to Autism has been debunked.

We had a thread on this that has many links to research done after 2005
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ghlight=autism

[ceptimus]

We have outbreaks of measles now in several parts of the UK: at least one person has died of the disease. This is due to not enough children being immunized with the MMR jab a few years ago because of the scare caused by the crook, Wakefield, and his wrong allegation of a link between MMR and autism. There are special emergency clinics now with long queues of teenagers and young adults keen to get the protective jabs they need - and would have received already, free of charge, were it not for Wakefield.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because the image (or pattern) does not get reflected and travel Spacemonkey. You are ignoring his claim.

You are again ignoring the problem, which has nothing at all to do with reflected or traveling images. I didn't mention images at all. The problem has only to do with your impossible claims about where light can be at different points in time. If the light is instantly at the retina as soon as the newly ignited Sun ignites, then this light cannot possibly have come from the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not allow yourself to accept that he was right [even temporarily] so that you can move forward. That's why you'll never understand this work. You have cotton in your ears.

You are again asking me to share your faith. That isn't how this works. If you have no evidence for his claims then you lose. You don't get to ask us to pretend he had support for things he never bothered to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm tired of you saying this. There were no presuppositions. You can't accept that he observed how conscience works and it's correct. But in order for these principles to work the environment has to change in order to remove the hurt done to others so that they won't have the justification to hurt in return.

Any premise in his argument, for which neither you or he has supporting evidence, is a presupposition. It is a presupposition that conscience has some innate potential perfection that it would achieve in the absence of blame. It is a presupposition because his arguments require this to be true, and yet he did not argue for or support this claim in any way. Unlike you, I will not just accept that his claims or 'observations' are correct because he said so. You need to be able to support them if you expect anyone to believe them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He described many things accurately. One of them is that we can only see this world through our very own consciousness. This can be observed and it doesn't need any other support.

That's just another faith claim to say that he observed many things accurately. Rational people use evidence to determine which observations are accurate and which are not. But you have no evidence. You have only faith. And I see you are once again attempting to base an argument upon a tautology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You got that right. And that's why there's no point in sending you the book. You even said it will not be accepted by the universities because it doesn't meet the epistemic standards to even consider it plausible. I'll find my own readers, but thanks for offering to help even if it was insincere.

You've now flip-flopped on sending me the book even more times than you flip-flopped on whether the light at the film traveled to get there. Where did I say anything about universities rejecting the book? Did you just make that up? If you really can't afford to send me a copy then just say so. Stop making up all these bogus excuses for backing out of your agreement.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, I bet your daddy could beat up my daddy!

But in all seriousness, that last statement bears examination. You have to start by defining your terms: in this case, what do you mean by consciousness? How do you define it?

If you define it as that which allows us to be aware of ourself and the world around us, then the statement "we can only see through our own consciousness" becomes a bit of a truism: that is what we have just defined it to mean! It is like saying "There is something through which all our experience flows. If we experience anything, then that experience is ours, and it has gone through it, and not through that through which someone elses experiences flow". In short, it is like saying "red mountains are not blue".

You can also define it as the act of awareness of ourself and our surroundings. But that does not solve the problem.

Do you have a definition of consciousness that makes the statement "We can only see the world through our own consciousness and not through someone else's" not trivially true?

I have been giving some thought to this consciousness question as well. It seems to me that whenever we read a book, watch a movie, look at a piece of art, listen to music, etc. we are experiencing/seeing the world as interpreted/mediated through someone else's consciousness.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Angakuk. Is it possible not do what has already been done? This observation does not need evidentiary support because it's self-evident. You can argue that we can go back in time and undo what has already been done, but there's no proof that this can be done.

What in the world are you talking about? Did I say anything about time travel or undoing that which has already been done? I am pretty sure that I did not.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have been giving some thought to this consciousness question as well. It seems to me that whenever we read a book, watch a movie, look at a piece of art, listen to music, etc. we are experiencing/seeing the world as interpreted/mediated through someone else's consciousness.

It is an argument that could be made, though it occurs to me that you could also say that when that happens, you are doing so through your own consciousness.

There are shamanic traditions that say it is possible to experience another person's consciousness in an even more direct way, though it is very hard to ascertain if they are right or not.

The problem for me is that I am not aware of a satisfactory definition of the word "consciousness".

[Vivisectus]

I agree with you but I don't have anyone to help me, and I'm new at this. Suggestions are welcome. I don't have a marketing plan yet. I'm on Chapter Eight, and as soon as I finish reading the proof and giving permission to put it online, I will try to figure out my next step

You are a beginner at a project you have tried to launch for 10 years? Then I do not think you will live long enough to become good at it, at the rate you are going.

Why have you not educated yourself about e-commerce? Why have you not signed up for some simple web-design classes? Why are you not researching target markets, advertising venues, and why is your website in such a state? If you want I can make a quick overview of the things that are obviously not right with your site, but the question should be - why on earth are you depending on me to do this for you? Why are you so incredibly passive? Do you think this is just going to happen?