A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Lack of Accurate data has never stopped Peacegirl before, why should you expect that she would provide anything useful now?

[Vivisectus]

Just because a reaction doesn't always occur immediately does not mean there isn't an association with some of the brain disorders we see today in children. Would you be willing to stand before parents whose child was perfectly healthy before the vaccine, and after the vaccine saw their child deteriorate right before their very eyes, and tell them that you are sorry their child isn't doing well but you are absolutely positive it had nothing to do with the vaccine? I doubt it highly because you really don't know, and when faced with a situation like this you could not bring yourself to say you are that positive.

It is easy to demonstrate how asinine that position is by replacing the word "vaccine" with "Peanut butter". Nothing substantial has changed.

Please substantiate your claims with some decent data in stead of with anecdotes from fellow alarmists. If not, then just admit you prefer your magic thinking. It is comforting, gives you something to be against, presents you with a nice and simple story in stead of all this difficult science, and at least you do not have to feel so powerless and ignorant.

Seriously, if only people could be a bit more honest about why they embrace the woo I would not mind. It is the disingenuous nonsense that gets so old so fast.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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?

Actually much of that work really should be attributed to Slipher, not Hubble. Slipher observed galactic redshifts long before Hubble.

That aside, those were observations. A hypothesis would be expansion of the universe; a test would be to check consistency by looking at dimming of distant supernovae as well as the stellar spectra.

An experiment would be to generate a number of universes in the lab under controlled conditions, and compare galactic redshifts from observers as you vary some cosmological parameters.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1158497]

Just because a reaction doesn't always occur immediately does not mean there isn't an association with some of the brain disorders we see today in children. Would you be willing to stand before parents whose child was perfectly healthy before the vaccine, and after the vaccine saw their child deteriorate right before their very eyes, and tell them that you are sorry their child isn't doing well but you are absolutely positive it had nothing to do with the vaccine? I doubt it highly because you really don't know, and when faced with a situation like this you could not bring yourself to say you are that positive.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is easy to demonstrate how asinine that position is by replacing the word "vaccine" with "Peanut butter". Nothing substantial has changed.

Please substantiate your claims with some decent data in stead of with anecdotes from fellow alarmists. If not, then just admit you prefer your magic thinking. It is comforting, gives you something to be against, presents you with a nice and simple story in stead of all this difficult science, and at least you do not have to feel so powerless and ignorant.

Seriously, if only people could be a bit more honest about why they embrace the woo I would not mind. It is the disingenuous nonsense that gets so old so fast.

You are the one that has his head in the sand. How can you so blatantly dismiss the testimony of so many parents who have seen their children have devastating reactions to vaccines that were given an hour before symptoms began? Maybe it is more difficult to implicate vaccines as being the sole cause of many allergic and autoimmune reactions that we're now seeing (further investigation is warranted), but you cannot deny that a subset of children have been severely damaged by vaccines.

Shocking Testimony About Vaccines !.flv - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

I never said a doctor would dissuade a patient from getting their child vaccinated, but unless they know positively that a child in their care won't be one of the unfortunate children who have a bad reaction, they will be compelled to be honest with what they do know. They will explain what the vaccine will protect a child against, but they will also tell the parent that they don't know whether the vaccine could cause a bad reaction or a long term problem in their child. That is why they will have no choice but to be honest about what they know and what they don't know (unless they want to take the risk that their recommendation could backfire which they would have to live with because no one would be holding them responsible; and why would they want to do that when their standard of living is guaranteed?) and leave it up to the parent to make the final decision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

From the same article:

IS IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS A CERTAINTY?

It can well be said that real "ignorance is not knowing, but knowing what isn't so." The question of whether vaccines in fact protect recipients from the diseases for which they are given, might seem absurd on the face of it. As already noted, when we closer examine the question of statistical evidence for immunization's effectiveness, there remain significant epidemiological uncertainties. The literature further reveals some critical problems in data gathering, interpretation and reporting practices.

These basic concerns are succinctly summarized by Professor Gordon Stewart, recent head of the Department of Community Medicine at Glasgow University: What kind of immunization is this for which success is being claimed?... What kind of epidemiology is this which advocates immunization b excluding, consideration of factors other than immunization? . . . "at kind of editorial policy is this which publishes incomplete data and promotes far reaching claims about the efficacy of immunization, but refuses to publish collateral data questioning this efficacy?

We are thus confronted with an unenviable situation where in the general absence of verifiable multifactored and controlled studies, immunization remains today -- scientifically speaking -- as a basically unproven program intervention. In fact, there is a substantive and growing body of data that call into serious question the soundness and effectiveness of mass immunization programs. This data not only calls into question immunizations's effectiveness, but further details adverse side effects and potential long term dangers of this widely implemented medical intervention.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

Not true.

[peacegirl]

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.

No I don't. I will continue to maintain that my father's observations were spot on, and the inferences that were made from those observations were also spot on.

[peacegirl]

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.

He gave plenty of examples, and none of them are indications that I outright lied for the sole intention of deceiving people.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

Autism for one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?

There is no doubt that children are getting more allergies and asthma than years past. What the reason for this is, is not totally clear, but many suggest that vaccines have something to do with it. That is what they are trying to find out, whether there is a correlation with the number and frequency of vaccines given and the onset of these chronic conditions.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't. I will continue to maintain that my father's observations were spot on, and the inferences that were made from those observations were also spot on.

Of course you will, no matter how many times he's shown to be wrong.

My observations are spot on, by the way.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true.

Liar!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

I gave that example because it was the first time mass vaccinations were given, and already there were signs that vaccinated children were not as robust as their unvaccinated counterparts. You really need to open your eyes, and not be so narrow in your thinking that anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, especially when there was an immediate reaction to the vaccine given one hour after administration.

Vaccination - Disease Prevention Or Organised...

&feature=c4-overview&list=UUzkOm_hlVmMIBNDfeF7zeKQ

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

I don't remember claiming asthma was non-existent before. If I did I was mistaken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

If you refuse to read this because it's whale, just gives me confirmation of how prejudiced you all are.

Postvaccinal Encephalitis

[Spacemonkey]

Being a whale is certainly one of the more socially damaging childhood brain disorders.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Liar!

Oh my goodness, you are imitating The Lone Ranger now. Could there be a correlation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Actually much of that work really should be attributed to Slipher, not Hubble. Slipher observed galactic redshifts long before Hubble.

That aside, those were observations. A hypothesis would be expansion of the universe; a test would be to check consistency by looking at dimming of distant supernovae as well as the stellar spectra.

An experiment would be to generate a number of universes in the lab under controlled conditions, and compare galactic redshifts from observers as you vary some cosmological parameters.

All that is well and good Dragar. I am not debating the methodology of empirical testing, but it is not the only way to find a universal truth. In fact, it could get in the way because of the false/positives that are a problem in this type of "proof:". Does that not tell you something? Of course not because you are biased.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Autism for one.

Autism symptoms have been described in medical terms since the 18th century and name Autism was first used in 1910. In the 40's and 50's it was thought to be associated with schizophrenia. Asperger's has only recently been added to the Autistic Spectrum, but it had been described for many years before it was named.

In years and centuries past people with severe forms of autism were labeled retarded or insane or simply institutionalized and never discussed. Those with Asperger like traits were called odd, eccentric, or a geek or nerd.

There is no doubt that children are getting more allergies and asthma than years past.

Evidence was asked for, and another assertion was received.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you refuse to read this because it's whale, just gives me confirmation of how prejudiced you all are.

Postvaccinal Encephalitis

It's a list of speculations. Do you have a link to actual evidence? Looks like this was associated with the smallpox vaccine, which is no longer administered.

Anyway, the most common cause is infection; viral, bacterial, and parasitical.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave that example because it was the first time mass vaccinations were given, and already there were signs that vaccinated children were not as robust as their unvaccinated counterparts. You really need to open your eyes, and not be so narrow in your thinking that anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, especially when there was an immediate reaction to the vaccine given one hour after administration.

So,basically, you cannot support your assertion that today's generation is weaker and sicker than any previous generation? You are specualting that there is an increase based on anecdotal evidence?

Do you understand that without knowing the percentage of the general population affected by this vague and undefined "weakness/sickness" you can't say anything about whether there has been an increase?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't remember claiming asthma was non-existent before. If I did I was mistaken.

Really, you don't remember? You just responded to a post from Angukuk with your own quote included:

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.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is well and good Dragar. I am not debating the methodology of empirical testing, but it is not the only way to find a universal truth.

You don't mean universal truth, but whatever.

And indeed, this is what the crackpots say.

I don't think you even understand what you are criticising here. You just know it rules out Lessans and the other crackpots you love to link to, and so you have to say it's wrong.

Meanwhile, science (the bedrock of which is empirical testing) marches on, and the crackpots are left behind.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness, you are imitating The Lone Ranger now. Could there be a correlation?

Indeed; your being called a liar is correlated with your lying.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1158521]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one that has his head in the sand. How can you so blatantly dismiss the testimony of so many parents who have seen their children have devastating reactions to vaccines that were given an hour before symptoms began? Maybe it is more difficult to implicate vaccines as being the sole cause of many allergic and autoimmune reactions that we're now seeing (further investigation is warranted), but you cannot deny that a subset of children have been severely damaged by vaccines.

Lets see what we've got.... ah more anecdotal evidence. And oh look! They have a poor kiddy testifying! That must make it at least 5 more true. Good grief. Is this the same standard of evidence that you require for your book?

Oh and what what? Vaccines cause autoimmune "reactions" now?

I guess ignorance can truly be a shield.