A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Gods, are you really that ignorant?

Yes, it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that there's no link between vaccination and autism. The one "study" which concluded that there was a link was shown to have been fraudulent. Good grief, do a little honest research!


Oh, wait. I forgot myself. I used the word "honest" in reference to peacegirl. My mistake.

***

Even so, there's a tiny chance of an adverse reaction to vaccination. There's a much greater chance that if you don't vaccinate him or her, your kid -- not to mention other people's kids -- will get sick and possibly die. So, you're arguing that if parents feel it's best for their kids not to be vaccinated -- because those parents are too idiotic to comprehend basic probability and/or they've selfishly decided to rely upon the fact that most other parents will behave responsibly and vaccinate their kids -- and theirs or somebody else's kid dies as a result, they shouldn't feel guilty. Even though that kid died as a direct result of foolish, selfish, and irresponsible actions taken by the parents.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Gods, are you really that ignorant?

Yes, it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that there's no link between vaccination and autism. The one "study" which concluded that there was a link was shown to have been fraudulent. Good grief, do a little honest research!

I know all about the research, but I don't trust every result put out by the medical profession. Sorry! That's good news for you though, for if you were a doctor in the new world you would have no problem convincing your patient that this is an absolute fact; that there is no connection. If her child should happen to get autism, you would know absolutely and positively that it was not because of the vaccine, and your conscience would be clear. Your patient would willingly listen to your advice because she knows you would never tell her something that wasn't absolutely true, and that is true because you wouldn't be able to justify hurting her by giving her false information.

Do vaccines cause autism? Must-see new video reveals the systematic suppression of evidence of vaccine-damaged children

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, wait. I forgot myself. I used the word "honest" in reference to peacegirl. My mistake.

***

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Even so, there's a tiny chance of an adverse reaction to vaccination. There's a much greater chance that if you don't vaccinate him or her, your kid -- not to mention other people's kids -- will get sick and possibly die. So, you're arguing that if parents feel it's best for their kids not to be vaccinated -- because those parents are too idiotic to comprehend basic probability and/or they've selfishly decided to rely upon the fact that most other parents will behave responsibly and vaccinate their kids -- and theirs or somebody else's kid dies as a result, they shouldn't feel guilty. Even though that kid died as a direct result of foolish, selfish, and irresponsible actions taken by the parents.

I'm sorry, you cannot use that argument. Even pro-vaccine people say that doesn't work because parents will do, first and foremost, what they believe is best for their child. Is it your fault if you grab your child and only have one hand, and therefore another child dies because you couldn't save both? Even though that's not an exact analogy, your argument is flawed and calling parents stupid, selfish, and irresponsible won't do you any good.

» Swine Flu Vaccination Poses Serious Threat to Your Health Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My original mistake in no way negates Lessans' claim, and to say that it does is poor reasoning on your part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Give me some examples of when I claimed to have not said something and then had my nose rubbed in it? Like when I used the term "internet checkers?" Silly stuff like that? Saying the speed of light has to be recalculated? I admit that was silly, but does that make this entire book wrong? It does no such thing Angakuk. You are really trying hard to make it appear as if these trivial mistakes have more significance than they do.

Gee, it sure is a good thing that I never made any such claim regarding the relationship between your errors and Lessans' book. What I said was that your errors undermine your defense of Lessans' book. That "silly stuff" has indeed destroyed whatever credibility you might have once had.

Lessans' errors suffice to undermine his own work, without any help from you.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1153903]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, saying no to vaccines is not reckless behavior. I don't know if you've been reading any of the articles I posted. Why is your head in the sand? First and foremost, it is the parents' obligation to do what they believe is in their children's best interest, and if that means saying no to vaccines, then no authority figure should be able to take that right away, no matter how misguided they are made to feel. This is such a heated debate, it's not worth arguing about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this topic. If I had a young child, I personally would hear all sides to make sure I'm getting all the facts. I'll post this again. Are you going to so callously say that there was no link to the vaccines these children were given and that these parents didn't know what they were talking about?

ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Multiple Vaccines. Danger!

Originally Posted by "Davidm

Right, there is NO link between vaccines and autism,

God, you are pathetic. You seem to have never learned anything at all about anything.

Hey, peacegirl, if parents think it's OK to let their children play with a loaded gun, and do so in the presence of other children, nothing wrong with that, right? One musn't override parental authority!

Look what has happened with antibiotics. They were overused, and now there's a problem. Of course we try to reduce the risk in any situation where other children could be harmed by our actions. In the new world we would do everything possible to prevent careless accidents that could be prevented with enough care and attention, but this is not the same animal David. Will the real please stand up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Gee, it sure is a good thing that I never made any such claim regarding the relationship between your errors and Lessans' book. What I said was that your errors undermine your defense of Lessans' book. That "silly stuff" has indeed destroyed whatever credibility you might have once had.

Lessans' errors suffice to undermine his own work, without any help from you.

I know you said that, and you said his defense ruins his credibility. Your argument sucks because you are using my errors not only as a reason to undermine my defense of the book, but the book itself, and you know it. What else do you have to go by but my defense. You haven't read the book, and you probably never will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Gods, are you really that ignorant?

Yes, it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that there's no link between vaccination and autism. The one "study" which concluded that there was a link was shown to have been fraudulent. Good grief, do a little honest research!

I know all about the research, but I don't trust every result put out by the medical profession. Sorry! That's good news for you though, for if you were a doctor in the new world you would have no problem convincing your patient that this is an absolute fact; that there is no connection. If her child should happen to get autism, you would know absolutely and positively that it was not because of the vaccine, and your conscience would be clear. Your patient would willingly listen to your advice because she knows you would never tell her something that wasn't absolutely true, and that is true because you wouldn't be able to justify hurting her by giving her false information.

Do vaccines cause autism? Must-see new video reveals the systematic suppression of evidence of vaccine-damaged children

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, wait. I forgot myself. I used the word "honest" in reference to peacegirl. My mistake.

***

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Even so, there's a tiny chance of an adverse reaction to vaccination. There's a much greater chance that if you don't vaccinate him or her, your kid -- not to mention other people's kids -- will get sick and possibly die. So, you're arguing that if parents feel it's best for their kids not to be vaccinated -- because those parents are too idiotic to comprehend basic probability and/or they've selfishly decided to rely upon the fact that most other parents will behave responsibly and vaccinate their kids -- and theirs or somebody else's kid dies as a result, they shouldn't feel guilty. Even though that kid died as a direct result of foolish, selfish, and irresponsible actions taken by the parents.

I'm sorry, you cannot use that argument. Even pro-vaccine people say that doesn't work because parents will do, first and foremost, for their child. Is it your fault if you grab your child and only have one hand, and therefore another child dies because you couldn't save both? Even though that's not an exact analogy, your argument is flawed and calling parents stupid, selfish, and irresponsible doesn't cut it.

» Swine Flu Vaccination Poses Serious Threat to Your Health Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[The Lone Ranger]

So, once again we see that peacegirl's attitude boils down to: "I don't care in the slightest about the facts; my mind is made up."

[LadyShea]

You mentioned formaldehyde previously. You are aware that we are exposed to formaldehyde every day in our normal environment and that our bodies produce it as well, right? Since you "know all the research"?

Do you know the comparisons between routine exposure amounts and vaccine amounts?

HepB - Recombivax - 3 doses (birth, 1-2 mos. and 6-18 mos.) - 7.5μg/dose
DTaP - Infanrix - 5 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6 mos., 15-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Hib - ActHIB - 3 doses (2 mos., 4 mos. and 12-15 mos.) - 0.5μg/dose
IPV - IPOL - 4 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Influenza - Fluzone - 7 doses (6 mos., 12 mos. and yearly 2-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
HepA - Havrix - 2 doses (12 mos. and 6-18 mos. after first dose) - 100μg/dose

That's all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule for 0-6 years that contain formaldehyde. If a child got all of those doses all at once (which they never would), they would get a total of 1,824μg, or 1.824mg, of formaldehyde. A 3.2kg (~7lb) newborn with an average blood volume of 83.3mL/kg would naturally have, at any given time, about 575-862μg of formaldehyde circulating in their blood. By the time they are 6 years old (~46lb or 21kg), they'll naturally have 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood. Bear in mind that the formaldehyde from each shot will not build up in their bodies from shot to shot, as it is very rapidly (within hours) metabolized and eliminated as formate in the urine or breathed out as CO2.

So what's the most a child might get in a single office visit? That would probably be at their 6 month visit (when they are, on average, 16.5lbs or 7.5kg) with HepB, DTaP, IPV and flu, for a total of 307.5μg. That is about 160 times less than the total amount their body naturally produces every single day*. Compare that to the 428.4-1,516.4μg of formaldehyde in a single apple.

Now, some might try to claim that the formaldehyde in vaccines is different from the formaldehyde in your body, but they are wrong. Formaldehyde, whether it is in a vaccine or your body, consists of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom bound to a carbon atom. The chemical structure is the same. http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/201...gredients.html

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you said that, and you said his defense ruins his credibility. Your argument sucks because you are using my errors not only as a reason to undermine my defense of the book, but the book itself, and you know it. What else do you have to go by but my defense. You haven't read the book, and you probably never will.

1. I never said that his defense ruins his credibility. I have never seen him offer any defense. I said that his errors undermine the credibility of his work.

2. I am not using your errors as a reason to undermine your defense of the book. Your errors simply do undermine that defense, as well as your credibility.

3. Supposing that I have not read the book, it remains the case that you have quoted enough of Lessans' nonsense so that his work is undermined by his own words. Your defense of that work is an entirely separate matter.

It is abundantly clear that you identify so completely with Lessans and his work that you are incapable of distinguishing criticism directed at you and your efforts from criticism directed at Lessans and his work. As far as you are concerned it is all one and the same thing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, once again we see that peacegirl's attitude boils down to: "I don't care in the slightest about the facts; my mind is made up."

At this point it has gone way beyond simple indifference. It is well into the realm of mental illness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't read the book, and you probably never will.

Oh, My, goodness. Now we are back to that old worn out criticism. The Book was posted online for years for anyone to read and download, and many did. Most on this thread have read the book and if they haven't they only need to ask. Since the book is quite humorous I would recommend it to anyone for the entertainment value, if nothing else.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you care what marketing I'm doing or not doing, when you hate the book? I don't get you. Now if you play nice, I'll take you off of ignore. If you don't play nice, you know where you'll end up again. It's your call.

Sorry, is that a confirmed ignore as of this date? I do like to keeop track of these things.

[Vivisectus]

Please note that I have been quite busy in the past few weeks and I may have missed important additions to the tracker. Feel free to let me know what needs updating and I will amend the sheet.


Progress Tracking

Books sold: 0
People convinced: 0
Estimated date of revolution: unspecified time after we are all dead.
Number of Scientists confirming the book 0
Instances of empirical evidence supporting the book surfaced 0
Marriages saved 0
Reasons to believe conscience works as described in the book found 0
Proof-puddings eaten 0 puddings
Amount of crow eaten by detractors 0 crows
Sexy jackets and translucent robes sales uplift (Year on year) N/A

Forum-specific

Amount of times that PG said she will soon leave this forum: 0
Amount of times that PG left 0
People on ignore (name, date of ignore start) 1? Spacemonkey (some time before 16 sept, unconfirmed)
People with Agendas: 1 (TheDoc)
People who are out to discredit the book because of personal reasons :0
People driven by anger, hatred, confusion and resentment and who should be pitied: 1 (Maturin)
People who reject the book because of the authors lack of credentials 0
Names called (by name called)

1. Slimy ( Pgirl -> Vivisectus) 1

People who have ruined it for everyone 0
Instances of Peacegirl being unable to explain or support her point because of other people's attitude and/or psionic powers 1
Tyranny ITT 1
People Who Blew It: 2 (Adam, Spacemonkey)


Enablers:

Meaningful changes made to marketing approach: 0
Meaningful changes made to website: 0
Skills acquired to market book: 0
Time spent acquiring relevant skills: 0
Time spent on relevant tasks: 0

Tasks achieved this week:

Posted on the freethought forum
Read stuff on the internet

Tracking 2 weeks of progress so far.

[Vivisectus]

Ohhh we need to add that I think: People who have Never read The Book.

[Vivisectus]

I think I am perfectly entitled to arm my children with firearms. I happen to feel very strongly about the risk of bear-attacks.

You cannot guarantee my child will not be attacked by a bear of I disarm my child. I am not aware of any studies done into the prevalence of bear-attacks among children. We all know that some children are sometimes harmed by bears. Bear attacks ruin lives: even a single bear-attack is one too many. I was armed as a child, and there were never any accidents.

Should accidents happen and my child or other children get hurt because of my choice to arm my child with a firearm, then I am not to blame: I was just looking after my child first, which is natural and my right. Even though all other parents make sure their children never get access to firearms, which significantly adds to my child’s safety, and even though the amount of death and destruction that would ensue if everyone would make the choice I make is staggeringly high, this is nevertheless a perfectly moral choice for me to make, because I am my child’s best advocate.

[Vivisectus]

Ah I see I need to improve:

I know there are lots of studies done into bear-attacks, and that they are shown to be incredibly rare. Biologists, animal behavior experts, field naturalists and trauma experts all say that there is very little chance of getting attacked by a bear. But I do not trust those studies. Sorry!

In stead I trust reports by people who feel exactly like I do about bear-attacks. They are comparable tot his link:

» Swine Flu Vaccination Poses Serious Threat to Your Health Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

In so far as the actual information in them is factually incorrect (the article claims there is squalene in flu vaccines - there isn't in the US), that the claim (squalene is linked to gulf war syndrome) is not just not evidenced, but impossible (there is STILL no squalene in US vaccinations), and that it is written by someone who does not have any qualifications.

These are the kind of sources that I DO find trustworthy. And based on this kind of information I am perfectly entitled to make my own choices regarding the protection I want to afford my children against bear attacks.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In so far as the actual information in them is factually incorrect (the article claims there is squalene in flu vaccines - there isn't in the US), that the claim (squalene is linked to gulf war syndrome) is not just not evidenced, but impossible (there is STILL no squalene in US vaccinations), and that it is written by someone who does not have any qualifications.

These are the kind of sources that I DO find trustworthy. And based on this kind of information I am perfectly entitled to make my own choices regarding the protection I want to afford my children against bear attacks.

These articles have some interesting information in this regard,

Squalene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immunologic adjuvant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that the Shark Liver Oil makes the vaccine work better.

[LadyShea]

H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine FAQ

None of the U.S. H1N1 swine flu or seasonal flu vaccines contains squalene.

Squalene isn't a very nice sounding word, but it's an oil that's a natural part of many body processes. It's widely used in cosmetics because it penetrates the skin easily without leaving an oily feel.

Squalene is also used in substances called adjuvants. When mixed with vaccines, adjuvants make vaccines work better at lower doses.

The U.S. purchased millions of doses of these adjuvants in case the H1N1 swine flu vaccine had to be boosted to be effective. That turned out not to be necessary. Unlike current H1N1 swine flu vaccines, a vaccine with adjuvant would have to be specifically approved by the FDA. Such vaccines could be used this year only under the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization. No such authorization has been issued.

However, adjuvants already are approved in Europe and other areas. They've been used safely in millions of people, although they may cause a bit more of a reaction at the site of injection that vaccines without adjuvant.

Vaccine makers likely will file for FDA approval of adjuvants, but this approval will be subject to rigorous safety analysis. In any case, no adjuvant will be used in any flu vaccine given in the U.S. this flu season.

[Vivisectus]

LOL that article was by Alex Jones, by the way. Alex "The gubmint is guiding tornadoes!!1!!" Jones. Alex "Jews and freemasons have taken over the world!!1!" Jones.

That is the kind of info you are basing your opinion on?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, once again we see that peacegirl's attitude boils down to: "I don't care in the slightest about the facts; my mind is made up."

You sound like a little kid on the playground who is losing the game.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL that article was by Alex Jones, by the way. Alex "The gubmint is guiding tornadoes!!1!!" Jones. Alex "Jews and freemasons have taken over the world!!1!" Jones.

That is the kind of info you are basing your opinion on?

Well yeah of course she is. The article itself talked about Bilderberg and the New World Order. And he got the basic facts wrong. He's a Conspiracy Theory kook who says wrong things, so must be trustworthy in peacegirl's eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

1. I never said that his defense ruins his credibility. I have never seen him offer any defense. I said that his errors undermine the credibility of his work.

But the error happens to be with your inability grasp these relations Angakuk. Just because you assert that there are errors does not mean there are any. You are limited, therefore you say the things you say. I forgive you, for your will is not free to react any other way than with extreme ignorance.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

2. I am not using your errors as a [B]reason[B] to undermine your defense of the book. Your errors simply do undermine that defense, as well as your credibility.

It does no such thing unless you want my trivial errors to make you want to believe that all of the other parts of my defense don't matter, or are null and void, which is ignorant on your part.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

3. Supposing that I have not read the book, it remains the case that you have quoted enough of Lessans' nonsense so that his work is undermined by his own words. Your defense of that work is an entirely separate matter.

You are completely out in left field Angakuk. All you do is criticize without ever asking a sincere question. Maybe you feel threatened because religion claims that man's will is free. I don't know, but I know one thing for sure. You have no understanding of this discovery. You just can't believe that a discovery can be made that will change the entire world for the better, and you are one of the privileged to hear about it first.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is abundantly clear that you identify so completely with Lessans and his work that you are incapable of distinguishing criticism directed at you and your efforts from criticism directed at Lessans and his work. As far as you are concerned it is all one and the same thing.

I have heard all of the criticism, and none of it holds. You sound like thedoc now. This is what happens when you hear enough garbage coming from anti-Lessans critics. You begin to identify with them and begin to sound like them. It's an interesting phenomenon to observe from an objective participant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned formaldehyde previously. You are aware that we are exposed to formaldehyde every day in our normal environment and that our bodies produce it as well, right? Since you "know all the research"?

Do you know the comparisons between routine exposure amounts and vaccine amounts?

It all sounds so airtight, doesn't it? It's a slam dunk, isn't it LadyShea? I am the one whose thinking is distorted, right? You would then have no problem telling patients (if you were a doctor) to take the vaccine because nothing bad can happen, and if something did happen your conscience would be clear because you would know it didn't come from the vaccine. It sounds to me like you have cotton in your ears. You won't hear the other side because you are determined to justify your stance on this matter. Why? Because that would make you closer to having to admit that maybe you're wrong about this discovery. That's what this boils down to. Do you have anything to say about the other link I connected you to? Does it bother you at all how children cannot be represented in court? Do you wonder if maybe, just maybe, there is some truth to the testimony that is before Congress?

Do vaccines cause autism? Highly informative...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all sounds so airtight, doesn't it? It's a slam dunk, isn't it LadyShea? I am the one whose thinking is distorted, right?

Yes. You were scaremongering about formaldehyde without any facts about formaldehyde. If you want to question the safety of formaldehyde using actual facts instead of hysteria, feel free to do so.

Lets look at the thimerosol scare to see if we can find similarities to the current formaldehyde alarmism. This "mercury" was pointed to as the cause so called vaccine related autism for years...and though the MMR never contained it, it was the most commonly cited vaccine as being associated with autism. When thimersol was removed from vaccines in 2000, autism rates didn't go down, they continued to rise and still do. So it obviously couldn't have been the thimerosol. Did the anti-vaxxers admit this? No, they just moved the goalposts and talk about adjuvants and multiple vaccines etc.

You won't hear the other side because you are determined to justify your stance on this matter. Why?

Because in the case of formaldehyde alarmism, the "other side" is not using actual facts. How can parents make informed decisions when the information from one side is bad?


I snipped the rest of your post because this one is specifically about formaldehyde. Let's break it down piece by piece and see if the "other side" has anything but hot air.

[specious_reasons]

Hey! Remember the Fizeau experiment which proved the speed of light, but also destroyed Lessans' ideas on vision nearly 100 years before Lessans even wrote about it? Adam Savage from Mythbusters used it as an example in one of his TED talks.

How simple ideas lead to scientific discoveries - Adam Savage - YouTube

The experiment is described and illustrated so well in the video that I'd point it out here, just in case peacegirl in interested. It wouldn't hurt peacegirl (or anyone) to watch the whole video....