A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one that said there are substances so toxic that even the tiniest amount, which you clarified to mean there is no smaller amount possible, can be lethal. This was not a true statement. In fact it was ridiculous and demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

So if it's a stupid conversation that's your fault for saying something stupid and holding on to it rather than just admitting you were mistaken.

Nobody has said anything about "safe", we are only talking about lethal and non lethal. Quit moving the goalpost.

There is a whole branch of science devoted to determining how poisonous things are, Toxicology, and they do tests and put substances on a scale of toxicity.

Again, the most toxic substance known to humans is routinely injected into people's faces without killing them. So it is not impossible to know what doses are not lethal, at all.

The chemicals in vaccines are known to be carcinogenic. The chemicals in vaccines are cumulative and known to cause synergistic problems that a single vaccine may not. So whether a certain dose is lethal is not the only consideration. No researcher can honestly say that he knows for sure whether the vaccine schedule given today is absolutely safe.

You might not die immediately, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cumulative effect on your health, or that it is totally benign.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything different? Who said benign at all? What happened to "the tiniest amount possible can be lethal"...accumulated is not the tiniest amount possible, right?

You are weaseling right now. You said something dumb, just admit it!

A small amount of certain toxins or chemicals can be lethal (e.g., dimethylmercury, botulism toxin, snake venom, etc). Maybe not the tiniest, but small enough to where a lethal dose was the size of a pinhead. This conversation has detoured once again. I made one comment about dosage and the conversation shifted entirely. We were discussing vaccines. Even if a toxin in a vaccine is not lethal it can still have a cumulative or a synergistic effect which can be deleterious to health. That is why Dr. Bob Johnson titled his book: Unsafe at Any Dose. Maybe the benefits of some vaccines outweigh the risks. I would never tell anyone what to do because I really don't know what is better. That being said, I will send studies to my son that have suggested that too many vaccines given to infants may not be safe. Due to the fact that children usually survive these milder illnesses, and because we live in a healthier environment, I would probably be conservative before injecting my infant with all of these chemicals. It seems like a no brainer to me. Here is the article again for anyone who wants to read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still don't know how they did this paper do you? The methodology was ridiculous so the findings are meaningless.

They could have just as easily found that vaccines cause car accidents using this method.

It is very difficult to identify a direct cause when it comes to the human body, even when the scientific studies are perfectly designed and executed. That does not mean that the toxins in these vaccines are not causing changes in the cells of the body. Don't you think a parent has the right to decide whether to vaccinate? Do you think it's fair to penalize unvaccinated children when the risk that their vaccinated peers will catch a disease from them is very low, and because many children who do get sick have been vaccinated? Here is a list of studies where it shows a connection between thimerosal and immune system abnormalities.

http://preventdisease.com/news/pdf/T...ormalities.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So now you want to return to discussing the book? You just said Friday, and I quote "I am not interested in discussing the book anymore" and on Thursday said "I'm just glad I'm not discussing the book anymore."

What is it you think is a ruse?

The whole vaccine discussion is a big ruse. Why would anyone be interested in my thoughts on the subject other than to find a way to discredit me and, by association, the book? I am not interested in discussing the book anymore because no one here understands that just because we can change our minds when choosing does not make determinism a modal fallacy, so there's nowhere to go. Maybe I will have a forum in the future where people can discuss the book after they have read it thoroughly.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1164995]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I understand that venom can be used to treat medical conditions. So can bee venom. But I'm sorry to tell you that you cannot compare the study of snake venom and how it may benefit certain health conditions to the toxic ingredients in vaccines starting with formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which have no benefit to the human body whatsoever. Crazy comparison.

LadyShea was correct, I was not comparing venom to the ingredients in vaccine, but those ingredients, though toxic, do benefit the body. Some are preservatives to keep the vaccine from going bad and then it can be kept and used for a longer time. Other ingredients enhance the action of the vaccine by stimulating the immune response of the body. Both of these effects would be a benefit to the human body. And comparing venom derivatives to the other toxins is quite apt and valid, as just the right amount can benefit the body but too much can be harmful. It's a good thing that medical science has determined the correct and safe dosage for these materials.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This conversation has detoured once again. I made one comment about dosage and the conversation shifted entirely. We were discussing vaccines. Even if a toxin in a vaccine is not lethal it can still have a cumulative or a synergistic effect which can be deleterious to health.

you say something that is wrong and others try to correct you, but you just get defensive and argue back instead of admitting your mistake. You really do have an ego problem, like your father, you can't admit when you are wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole vaccine discussion is a big ruse.

Well if so, then it's your ruse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would anyone be interested in my thoughts on the subject other than to find a way to discredit me and, by association, the book?

All one has to do to discredit you is provide you with a keyboard.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea was correct, I was not comparing venom to the ingredients in vaccine, but those ingredients, though toxic, do benefit the body. Some are preservatives to keep the vaccine from going bad and then it can be kept and used for a longer time. Other ingredients enhance the action of the vaccine by stimulating the immune response of the body. Both of these effects would be a benefit to the human body. And comparing venom derivatives to the other toxins is quite apt and valid, as just the right amount can benefit the body but too much can be harmful. It's a good thing that medical science has determined the correct and safe dosage for these materials.

Vaccines have to be weighed against the risks. Some of these adjuvants are known carcinogens. Formaldehyde just to name one; aluminum hydroxide is another. How much does it take to be harmful? Does anyone really know? Artificially stimulating the immune system may not be a good thing as previously thought. There are too many unknowns with this new vaccine schedule to mention. Parents need to know all of the facts (the good, the bad, and the ugly), not just what doctors want them to know, in order for them to make an informed choice.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No researcher can honestly say that he knows for sure whether the vaccine schedule given today is absolutely safe.

No researcher or medical professional ever says that a medication, vaccine, or procedure is absolutely safe, there is always a list of risks and the possibility of failure or death.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very difficult to identify a direct cause when it comes to the human body, even when the scientific studies are perfectly designed and executed.

That is right and it's even more difficult for someone who is not a trained medical professional to identify causes. Most parents will react with hysterics when it is their child and that is why these accounts should be given less weight than those of a trained medical professional.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The chemicals in vaccines are known to be carcinogenic. The chemicals in vaccines are cumulative and known to cause synergistic problems that a single vaccine may not. So whether a certain dose is lethal is not the only consideration. No researcher can honestly say that he knows for sure whether the vaccine schedule given today is absolutely safe.

A small amount of certain toxins or chemicals can be lethal (e.g., dimethylmercury, botulism toxin, snake venom, etc). Maybe not the tiniest, but small enough to where a lethal dose was the size of a pinhead. This conversation has detoured once again. I made one comment about dosage and the conversation shifted entirely. We were discussing vaccines. Even if a toxin in a vaccine is not lethal it can still have a cumulative or a synergistic effect which can be deleterious to health. That is why Dr. Bob Johnson titled his book: Unsafe at Any Dose. Maybe the benefits of some vaccines outweigh the risks. I would never tell anyone what to do because I really don't know what is better. That being said, I will send studies to my son that have suggested that too many vaccines given to infants may not be safe. Due to the fact that children usually survive these milder illnesses, and because we live in a healthier environment, I would probably be conservative before injecting my infant with all of these chemicals. It seems like a no brainer to me. Here is the article again for anyone who wants to read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

You made the stupid comment, and you keep trying to justify it instead of just admitting you were mistaken. You look disingenuous, you know.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No researcher or medical professional ever says that a medication, vaccine, or procedure is absolutely safe, there is always a list of risks and the possibility of failure or death.

Dr. Geier does He said in the video that peacegirl posted that Lupron is "absolutely safe". Those were his exact words.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole vaccine discussion is a big ruse.

You brought it up

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would anyone be interested in my thoughts on the subject other than to find a way to discredit me and, by association, the book?

Once again, you are misusing the word discredit.

But, as to why I am interested, I like to debate, and you offer plenty of stuff to research and debunk. I had never even heard of the Geiers until you brought them up...that was interesting, and somewhat horrifying, for me to research. I think it's terrible how some people take advantage of those that are desperate.

I am not interested in discussing the book anymore because no one here understands that just because we can change our minds when choosing does not make determinism a modal fallacy, so there's nowhere to go. Maybe I will have a forum in the future where people can discuss the book after they have read it thoroughly.

Determinism isn't a modal fallacy. Lessans explanation of the satisfaction principle commits the modal fallacy by illicitly introducing the factor of necessity via compulsion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very difficult to identify a direct cause when it comes to the human body, even when the scientific studies are perfectly designed and executed. That does not mean that the toxins in these vaccines are not causing changes in the cells of the body. Don't you think a parent has the right to decide whether to vaccinate? Do you think it's fair to penalize unvaccinated children when the risk that their vaccinated peers will catch a disease from them is very low, and because many children who do get sick have been vaccinated? Here is a list of studies where it shows a connection between thimerosal and immune system abnormalities.

http://preventdisease.com/news/pdf/T...ormalities.pdf

Even if, for arguments sake, we say those studies are conclusive...Thimerosal has been removed from all the childhood vaccinations and even the flu vaccine is always available without it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The chemicals in vaccines are known to be carcinogenic.

The chemicals in vaccines are cumulative and known to cause synergistic problems that a single vaccine may not.

Can you provide hard data to prove either of these statements or are they just something you got from the anti-vax Woo's, or just pulled out of your ass?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe not the tiniest, but small enough to where a lethal dose was the size of a pinhead.

Put up or shut up. What are the lethal doses per lb. of human weight? Do you have any idea, or are you just pulling shit out of the air? Name a venom and specify the lethal dose per Lb. of human weight, or STFU. You are posting like an idiot on drugs, and it's getting really tiresome.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dr. Geier does He said in the video that peacegirl posted that Lupron is "absolutely safe". Those were his exact words.

And he had his license to practice medicine revoked. I wonder why?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what he is trying to show; that every single moment of our lives is a movement in the direction of [greater] satisfaction, therefore when two or more options are before us it doesn't change the law of our nature. It may just take more time for us to contemplate the consequences of each choice in order to determine which choice is the most preferable but, to repeat, it doesn't change the direction our nature is compelled to go.

Even if it is true that "every single moment of our lives is a movement in the direction of [greater] satisfaction" it does not neccessarily follow from this that we lack the freedom to choose. Lessans' argument assumes that we lack the capacity to choose what we find satisfying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My father was a humble man. He didn't toot his own horn.

It's a good thing then that he has you. You do enough tooting for both of you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they knew they were on the right track and they proved it in the end.

Something that Lessans failed to accomplish.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Particles in the air cause illness, but air itself does not. When you breath in emissions you are not just breathing air, you are breathing in toxins. Why are you making this distinction unnecessary?

If you go back and look at the post where LadyShea raised the issue of multiple common denominators you will note that she listed breathing as one of those possible common denominators. I don't recall that she indentified the specific constituents of what was being breathed. Are you arguing that breathing is not something that people diagnosed with autism have in common?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact is that even smart people make mistakes. Hell some even say the smarter the person the bigger the mistakes they make.

If that is true then Lessans' book constitutes prima facie evidence that he was a genius. Likewise, this thread constitutes prima facia evidence of peacegirl's genius.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason I brought this up was to show that he made mistakes just like every other human being, but in the end he succeeded.

You have succeeded in demonstrating the first part but you have failed rather spectacularly in demonstrating the last part.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you accuse us of wanting to burn his books, of resenting him, of wanting to discredit him, of trying to ruin his reputation...that's histrionics.

The truth is that Lessans was the only person who ever actually had any desire to burn his books. Ironic isn't it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have told you I will not watch videos. I will read articles or papers.

I know why Geier used the Lupron treatment. He was not silent abut it, and defended the practice in his hearings with medical boards. It is likely that he used the diagnosis of precocious puberty to get the treatment paid for by insurance, as well as to avoid disciplinary action.

WARNING: Totally anectdotal evidence coming up.

Twenty-five years ago I taught a class of autistic students, all boys. None of them displayed any symptoms of premature puberty. Draw your own conclusions.

Originally Posted by thedoc

...you might learn something.

That is some pretty heavy-duty wishful thinking, doc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

you say something that is wrong and others try to correct you, but you just get defensive and argue back instead of admitting your mistake. You really do have an ego problem, like your father, you can't admit when you are wrong.

Do you see how it always relates back to my father? And you don't think that's what this all about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Put up or shut up. What are the lethal doses per lb. of human weight? Do you have any idea, or are you just pulling shit out of the air? Name a venom and specify the lethal dose per Lb. of human weight, or STFU. You are posting like an idiot on drugs, and it's getting really tiresome.

I told you that if you continue to talk down to me, I will not engage with you and I meant it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You brought it up

Once again, you are misusing the word discredit.

But, as to why I am interested, I like to debate, and you offer plenty of stuff to research and debunk. I had never even heard of the Geiers until you brought them up...that was interesting, and somewhat horrifying, for me to research. I think it's terrible how some people take advantage of those that are desperate.

Determinism isn't a modal fallacy. Lessans explanation of the satisfaction principle commits the modal fallacy by illicitly introducing the factor of necessity via compulsion.

Determinism means we are compelled LadyShea, that we have no choice. Lessans' proposal does not remove the agent, but to believe that just because we can contemplate, consider, ponder, evaluate our choices ahead of time does not mean our choices are free. This is a superficial observation that does not hold when one takes a deeper look. Lessans also demonstrates that just because our choices are determined does not remove moral responsibility which is the other side of the two-sided equation. People seem to be missing one half of the equation entirely and yet they think they can dispute it.

[LadyShea]

Formaldehyde is routinely found in the air. So again, breathing is another common denominator in formaldehyde exposure.

More formaldehyde is found in a single apple than in all the vaccines recommended at the 6 month visit, so food is an important common denominator as well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if, for arguments sake, we say those studies are conclusive...Thimerosal has been removed from all the childhood vaccinations and even the flu vaccine is always available without it.

That's not the reason I posted this. I posted this to show that there have been many studies showing a link with ethylmercury and autism, yet the pro-vaxers say there has never been a connection. That indicates to me that they are not being truthful which gives me reason not to trust what they say regarding other ingredients in vaccines because they are obviously biased.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism means we are compelled LadyShea, that we have no choice.

Lessans did not provide any evidence that a compulsion exists. That's the whole problem. He just assumed it in his argument. That's the modal fallacy. As you well know because it's been explained many times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Formaldehyde is routinely found in the air. So again, breathing is another common denominator in formaldehyde exposure.

More formaldehyde is found in a single apple than in all the vaccines recommended at the 6 month visit, so food is an important common denominator as well.

Genetic and related effects: Formaldehyde is a direct-acting genotoxic compound that affects multiple gene expression pathways, including those involved in DNA synthesis and repair and regulation of cell proliferation. … In vitro studies with mammalian and human cells were positive for DNA adducts, DNA-protein crosslinks, DNA-DNA crosslinks, unscheduled DNA synthesis, single-strand breaks, mutations, and cytogenetic effects (chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchange, and micronucleus induction).

Formaldehyde in Vaccines: A DNA Adduct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans did not provide any evidence that a compulsion exists. That's the whole problem. He just assumed it in his argument. That's the modal fallacy. As you well know because it's been explained many times.

You are so completely wrong here, I don't know what else to tell you. There were no assumptions made LadyShea. He was exact in his analysis. You are the one failing to understand why we are always and ever moving toward greater satisfaction, every single moment of our lives whether we're making a choice between two or more alternatives, or not. Just because we are mulling over a choice does not change the direction we are compelled to go, which is confusing you. So stop telling me that this is a modal fallacy, as if you are now the expert, which you are not.