A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These are the vague claims I am asking you to support with valid statistics and data. How do you know that this is true? Did you get it in a psychic message, did you hear someone claim that and decide it was true because of your feelings? What is this based on? What makes you think a higher percentage of kids are sick more often than kids in the past?

You are, once again, missing the point. As long as scientists don't know what is causing children to have lowered resistance (regardless of the cause), no doctor in the new world would ever tell a parent what to do when it comes to vaccinations, let alone charge a parent with negligence if they don't follow government orders. What is very concerning to me are the reports of children who get sick right after being given a vaccine. I also believe that parents are usually the first ones to observe sudden changes in their children, and can give an accurate account of the time the onset of symptoms occurred.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, I am simply not redefining words to suit my preferences as you do all the time.

Science is the systematic study of the universe using observation and experimentation. You can't just stop at observation, otherwise you are not doing science.

I do not redefine words. The only time Lessans redefined words was when the conventional definition used was incomplete and therefore not a true representation of reality. The only other time was when he used the terms scientific, mathematical, and undeniable as synonymous. You grab onto this any time you feel you are losing the debate. You are very sneaky.

[Adam]

Indeed.

For example, the usual definition of science, failing as it did to encompass "shit I just made up, but feel very strongly about" was incomplete and, as such, needed redefinition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Both of these have been asserted but not proven, there is no evidence or statistics to back up these claims.

Mass immunization programs have been seriously questioned on both developmental and scientific grounds. It will be the purpose of this report to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues of controversy, draw some conclusions, and make appropriate recommendations. The critique of these issues stems from a careful review and evaluation of wide ranging biomedical literature sources of relevance to the subject. This work has been carried out in the spirit of honest inquiry, thus affording a fresh and critical analyses of the fundamental issues.

Although the conclusions as reached visibly sustain "one side" of what is largely a hidden and professionalist dominated debate on immunization, the reader should note that this is done in order to provide a long neglected and constructive counterbalance to the predominating supportive declarations of the establishment, and in turn the parroted promotion of the same view by the popular media.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...6/vaccine.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Indeed.

For example, the usual definition of science, failing as it did to encompass "shit I just made up, but feel very strongly about" was incomplete and, as such, needed redefinition.

As I have expressed throughout this thread, this knowledge is scientific even though he did not collect data. His observations regarding human nature were spot on, and will be shown to be correct when war and crime come to an end. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In fairness, LadyShea wrote:

To which peacegirl replied:

In this, LadyShea is correct. The whole point of science is to generate and test hypotheses. If you're not generating and testing hypotheses, you're not doing science. In most fields of science, the gold standard of hypothesis testing is through experimentation. But hypotheses can be tested through observational or correlational studies as well. Sometimes, as noted, direct experimentation is difficult, unethical, or outright impossible. That doesn't change the fact that science is all about generating and testing hypotheses.

In short, devising and testing hypotheses is what science is.

But some things cannot be tested in this way. And I have said many many times that Lessans did not plan on making a discovery, so he did not start out with a hypothesis. This does not mean his observations were not valid. Eventually, they will be shown to be accurate.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

***

Oh, and for the record, there's nothing new about asthma. It was named and described more than 2,000 years ago.

So why are they implicating C-sections as being a contributor to the rate at which asthma is occurring in children? Just wondering.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And also for the record: peacegirl has no more idea of what a "true scientist" is and how (s)he works than does a rock.

So why are you here? Why are you wasting your time with me?

[The Lone Ranger]

Because I feel an obligation to point it out when you lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because I feel an obligation to point it out when you lie.

Ugh!!! How many times have I told you that I have never intentionally lied or deceived anyone.

[The Lone Ranger]

Shall we provide another list of examples?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ugh!!! How many times have I told you that I have never intentionally lied or deceived anyone.

Almost as often as you've lied.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are, once again, missing the point. As long as scientists don't know what is causing children to have lowered resistance (regardless of the cause), no doctor in the new world would ever tell a parent what to do when it comes to vaccinations, let alone charge a parent with negligence if they don't follow government orders.

This is exactly what needs to be demonstrated with some concrete data and not just the rantings of you and the rest of the lunatic fringe screaming on the street corner waving your Bibles at everyone. No doctor in his right mind in this age or the new, would dissuade a parent from having their child vaccinated for a disease that has been proven to be preventable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mass immunization programs have been seriously questioned on both developmental and scientific grounds. It will be the purpose of this report to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues of controversy, draw some conclusions, and make appropriate recommendations. The critique of these issues stems from a careful review and evaluation of wide ranging biomedical literature sources of relevance to the subject. This work has been carried out in the spirit of honest inquiry, thus affording a fresh and critical analyses of the fundamental issues.

Although the conclusions as reached visibly sustain "one side" of what is largely a hidden and professionalist dominated debate on immunization, the reader should note that this is done in order to provide a long neglected and constructive counterbalance to the predominating supportive declarations of the establishment, and in turn the parroted promotion of the same view by the popular media.

I don't think I have ever seen a better introduction to a WOO merchants paper than this. It immediately states that every thing in the article is accurate without providing any supporting information. I don't think Lessans could have done better as it is clearly written and not convoluted and confusing at all. With that one exception I would suggest that Lessans could have written it for his book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...6/vaccine.aspx
[/I]

From the article,

Physiologist, S.K. Claunch raises an reasonable postulate when he suggests that the body's capacity to initiate a "vigorous reaction" (i.e., the acute processes of elimination associated with viral and infectious diseases) hinges essentially on its level of vitality, and thus such reactions are most commonly found in children. In contrast, it is generally acknowledged that the very feeble and or chronically diseased -- who have significantly lower vital energy levels -- tend to remain relatively free from such acute reactions.

This observation in turn lead him to express the concept that: If any child has its vitality lowered and its health impaired to the degree that it is no longer strong enough to develop an acute disease, it is, for the time being, at least "immune." This is the exact clinical picture one observes when serums, vaccines and "biologicals" are shot into a child . . . its vitality is so lowered that it is no longer healthy enough to protest or react against them. So long as its vitality stays down, it will be "immune."

This is complete and utter 'Bull Shit' to suggest that a weakened individual is "Immune" to a disease is totally unrealistic. If a person's system is weaker, contracting a disease will be more serious, even deadly. Immunity is not enhanced by depressing the strength of the organism. I am appalled at the stupidity of such a remark, obviously the result of an agenda of lies and deception.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very good; then take your own advice and follow through with listening to the videos that claim there is a direct connection to vaccine administration and their children having heartbreaking reactions.

Why? They're crackpots. They don't do science; they don't have good observations; they don't have anything to test.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Shall we provide another list of examples?

I don't consider the examples you gave proof that I lie. I never purposely had the intention to deceive anyone.

A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.

Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm not trying to be argumentative but there are experiments that can be preformed on the light that arrives from those distant stars and galaxies. It's a bit of a stretch but they are experiments as well as tests.

Not really. At best you could argue that Nature is carrying out a load of experiments Herself, but we don't get to pick which ones. We just get to watch.

But that's silly; what we do is test hypothesis using data. You can get useful data from experiments. It's harder, much harder, to get useful data from observations, which is why progress can be much slower. But you can, and so you can still do tests.

On the other hand, scientific observations are nothing like peacegirl seems to think they are. She's got some strange crackpot view of how it works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Not really. At best you could argue that Nature is carrying out a load of experiments Herself, but we don't get to pick which ones. We just get to watch.

But that's silly; what we do is test hypothesis using data. You can get useful data from experiments. It's harder, much harder, to get useful data from observations, which is why progress can be much slower. But you can, and so you can still do tests.

On the other hand, scientific observations are nothing like peacegirl seems to think they are. She's got some strange crackpot view of how it works.

Alright setting peacegirl's delusions aside for now, how would you consider Hubble's Spectrum's of distant Galaxies, that he used to discover the "Red Shift" and the distances to Galaxies outside the milky way. Are they Observations, tests, or Experiments?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't consider the examples you gave proof that I lie. I never purposely had the intention to deceive anyone.

Quite amusing, TLR didn't give any examples yet, but you automatically denounce them as not proof. Willful Ignorance at it's best.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we are seeing a lot of allergies and asthma, and other developmental problems that were non-existent in years past.

Could you please identify a few of those "developmental problems that were non-existent in years past"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are a growing number of children who are having these issues.

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quite amusing, TLR didn't give any examples yet, but you automatically denounce them as not proof. Willful Ignorance at it's best.

TLR was clearly referring to an earlier list of examples. It is not entirely inconceivable that peacegirl was also referring to such a previous list.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not comparing apples to oranges when you say that you cannot implicate vaccines due to the fact that these conditions may be due to medical advancements? Are you not doing that very thing; coming up with a far fetched story that would justify ignoring any of the evidence from the 1930's which, by the way, gives us very compelling evidence that vaccines play a part in a subset of children who have constitutional weaknesses? Very slick LadyShea but it doesn't fly. You are just as prejudiced in your pro-vaccine agenda as those who believe differently than you do. Stop defending yourself when there is no defense.

Huh? You claimed today's generation is weaker and sicker than any other generation before. When asked for evidence you offer anecdotes from a doctor at the beginning of the 20th century...3 generations back.

How does that speak to today's generation being weaker and sicker? Do you plan to support your assertion?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are, once again, missing the point. As long as scientists don't know what is causing children to have lowered resistance (regardless of the cause)

You need to demonstrate that this "lower resistance" even exists before we can discuss causes! That's what I am asking, and have been asking, you to support. You make these vague claims based on stuff you found in your belly button or something, and then want to place blame.

You have to clearly identify the problem!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why are they implicating C-sections as being a contributor to the rate at which asthma is occurring in children? Just wondering.

Hello Captain non-sequitur! You claimed asthma was non-existent before, and he corrected you.

There is a small correlation between C-Sections and incidence of asthma that they are investigating, nobody ever claimed C-Sections are the one and only cause of asthma....they don't even know if there is causation yet.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Autism, encephalitis, ADD to name a few.

Um, you sure about that? Did you really mean to include encephalitis in that list?

It's just that encephalitis is usually caused by infectious agents...such as various viruses. Some of which are vaccine preventable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

TLR was clearly referring to an earlier list of examples. It is not entirely inconceivable that peacegirl was also referring to such a previous list.

And just who is going to scroll back through the thread to find these alleged examples? Certainly not me, but if you feel the need to waste your time in such an endeavor, please be my guest. Just another post that Peacegirl will ignore.