A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is one big difference and that is the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. AND DON'T USE THE ARGUMENT THAT TAKING A CAUTIOUS ATTITUDE TOWARD VACCINES IS MORE HARMFUL TO OUR CHILDREN THAN INJECTING THEM WITH ALL KINDS OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES WITHOUT KNOWING POSITIVELY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE HURT IN THE LONG RUN.

That does not seem to have a lot to do with the problem that now the corruption of the Big Alternate Pharma complex has been exposed, we should simply disregard all information coming from Mike since this means he must be one of their flunkies.

But I am glad you admit that the logic of the position that it is more harmful to not vaccinate is inescapable and morally dubious by the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

[LadyShea]

You are not giving enough credit to parents, and you cannot simply compare the very real dangers of vaccines to reckless behavior in other categories. That is a slick way to justify forcing parents to do what is their right not to do.

I was asking where the line for free choice should be drawn and if they should be consequence free.

I made one of those choices, and it was not condoned or supported and in fact heavily discouraged, but I did it anyway. I exercised a choice...but it wasn't easy or consequence free. Why should it be?

The information should include all of the up-to-date studies, and the bad reactions that appear to have a causal connection so the parent can decide if the risks outweigh the benefits, or vice versa.

The "very real dangers of vaccines" have not been demonstrated in studies. You have yet to offer an actual scientific study to support the anti-vax views, instead giving a bunch of videos. Why is that? Why aren't those scientists proving their points using science?

They don't want their patients debating this issue, because they lose control of their status as doctors who are supposed to know what's best for the patient. Ha!!

Then parents should exercise their freedom to choose a doctor that is a better fit. I personally interviewed several doctors before my son was even born, to ensure he/she was someone I could work with over the years.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My daughter knows of at least one mother who refused to allow her children to be vaccinated, and then was refused as a patient of that doctor.

Doctors can (and do) refuse to serve patients if they think the patients are being grossly negligent in their own healthcare. This doctor apparently has the (correct) opinion that not vaccinating your children for anything other than known health reasons is gross negligence.

That's a pretty bold doctor - walking away from a paying customer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think free choice should consequence free; automatically supported and condoned? What if a parent chooses to not use car seats? What if a parent chooses to use a strict infant feeding schedule that has been associated with failure to thrive and dehydration (On Becoming Babywise)? What if a parent chooses to use a discipline method that has been associated with several deaths (To Train Up a Child)? What of parents who choose to feed their children extremely unhealthy junk food diets that cause the child to become obese? What of those parents who choose to co-sleep with their infants?

Should doctors be forced to take patients whose parents choose things the doctor thinks are dangerous or reckless?

Perhaps you are like most of us, and want your choices supported, but have no problem with the choices of others being limited because those are not things you would choose? Where is the line for free choice drawn?

First of all this was a conversation with my daughter, and I was a bit surprised by the strength of her opinions. I'm not sure I can totally agree with her ideas about the additives in vaccines, and I didn't want to get into a heated argument, but I would agree that testing of these materials would be a good idea. Hysterics on the part of the anti-vax crowd is not helping, and with-holding information by the medical profession just makes for more distrust.

My main point was to illustrate that there are doctors who take an extreme position on the question of vaccination which would negate the idea of choice on the part of the parent. Whether the parent should have the choice is being debated and should be, but they should also be advised to get good information on which to base that choice and this is the problem for both parents and doctors. There is too much bad information out there and not everyone can verify the sources so easily.

My daughter did bring up one point with which I agree, the source of the vaccine should be readily disclosed, and I would not allow administering anything that was produced in China, for one. She pointed out that there may be strict controls in this country but China does not always respect those controls in the manufacture of goods for export. There are too many cases on record, and no way of knowing how many products slip by undetected.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Doctors can (and do) refuse to serve patients if they think the patients are being grossly negligent in their own healthcare. This doctor apparently has the (correct) opinion that not vaccinating your children for anything other than known health reasons is gross negligence.

That's a pretty bold doctor - walking away from a paying customer.

Yes my daughter was quite adamant in her opinion, but to tell the truth I'm just not sure where I would stand on an issue like this. The real question is 'Should the parent be given the choice to vaccinate their children or not'? As I stated elsewhere the hysterics on one side and withholding information on the other, is not helping.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My main point was to illustrate that there are doctors who take an extreme position on the question of vaccination which would negate the idea of choice on the part of the parent.

There are doctors who are okay with it, and doctors who will refuse to take that child as a patient. I have yet to meet a non-vaxxing parent who was unable to find a physician. Also, since the parents who don't vax tend to talk to each other, they pass this information on and the doctor gets new patients that way.

Anyhoo, I live in a little town in a backwards ass Deep South state, so if there are doctors here who will take unvaccinated patients, there are doctors everywhere who will do so. So it doesn't negate the choice, it just adds another choice to the mix.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"a lot"

I DO NOT care about numbers when it comes to this thread. It's a trainwreck but not for the reasons you believe. I'm leaving because there's nothing to be gained, as Spacemonkey said. I am marching onwards and upwards. I won't have time to argue with people who are bent on being right at all costs. You can call me a nutcase, a woo, or anything else you care to throw in, but the truth is this does not prove Lessans wrong in any way, shape, or form. All I can say in response to these attacks is let the best man win.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are doctors who are okay with it, and doctors who will refuse to take that child as a patient. I have yet to meet a non-vaxxing parent who was unable to find a physician. Also, since the parents who don't vax tend to talk to each other, they pass this information on and the doctor gets new patients that way.

Anyhoo, I live in a little town in a backwards ass Deep South state, so if there are doctors here who will take unvaccinated patients, there are doctors everywhere who will do so. So it doesn't negate the choice, it just adds another choice to the mix.

Thank goodness progress is being made, slow but sure. This is one doctor who is okay with it which supports the ongoing movement for free choice without penalty.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ine-myths.aspx

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DO NOT care about numbers when it comes to this thread. It's a trainwreck but not for the reasons you believe. I'm leaving because there's nothing to be gained, as Spacemonkey said. I am marching onwards and upwards. I won't have time to argue with people who are bent on being right at all costs. You can call me a nutcase, a woo, or anything else you care to throw in, but the truth is this does not prove Lessans wrong in any way, shape, or form. All I can say in response to these attacks is let the best man win.

You're leaving yet again huh? Well I'll believe it when I see it. Have fun marketing the book!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

VACCINES CAUSE 400% RISE IN NARCOLEPSY!1!!1!

Those people are agenda-driven whackadoos with weeds up their asses.

Never mind vaccines and narcolepsy. Why does no one care that 100% of autistic children drank milk before contracting autism? That's 100%, as in every. Last. Goddamn. One.

But is anyone talking about THAT? Nooooooooooo, of course not! Big Dairy is just too powerful, and the money made selling milk -- which shall henceforth and forevermore be known as AUTISM JUICE -- is just too good.

Go ahead. Tell me this isn't a case of profit over safety. I double dog dare you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That does not seem to have a lot to do with the problem that now the corruption of the Big Alternate Pharma complex has been exposed,

HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO WHAT? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO BE CONDEMNED FOR?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

we should simply disregard all information coming from Mike since this means he must be one of their flunkies.

First of all, he does not support GMO's so whoever is giving this false information needs to check their facts. Secondly, I am not depending on Mike Adams for all of my information, although I do respect his position. If you notice, there are plenty of people who are joining this movement to stop the government cover up regarding the vaccine safety record and the number of injuries reported.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am glad you admit that the logic of the position that it is more harmful to not vaccinate is inescapable and morally dubious by the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Well that is understandable coming from your position. But if you look closely, the question as to who has their fingers in their ears is debatable.

[LadyShea]

It's this guy, didn't you read it? He thinks Mike Adams is hiding the facts! Maybe he is right?! Who knows in this web of lies and deceit?

10-20-2012 The Case Against Mike Adams “Health Ranger” | DISMANTLE THE BEAM PROJECT

Originally Posted by Link above

He (Mike Adams) is a suspected Monsanto informant and a highly specialized dissemination professional who pushes deceptive propaganda through the natural health venues. He may be directly, but seemingly indirectly to you and I, working for Al Gore. All Gore is the ring master placed before the public’s eye in the midst of project Cloverleaf (Chemtrails) weather and geomodification programs among others. Gore has been senior adviser to Google Incorporated and that parallels Mike Adam’s profile as being an information hog himself. It’s peculiar that Mike disseminates vital information being the assumed ‘health nut’ before the best of the research investigative researchers in the industry do. It is likelier that he is in ‘first served’ receipt of information feeds.. that’s certain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Doctors can (and do) refuse to serve patients if they think the patients are being grossly negligent in their own healthcare. This doctor apparently has the (correct) opinion that not vaccinating your children for anything other than known health reasons is gross negligence.

That's a pretty bold doctor - walking away from a paying customer.

It's not bold at all; it's ego driven. He'd rather not deal with patients who buck the system. He wants compliant sheep that follow all the rules without question. He is also getting support from the APA, which gives him further justification to tell a patient to go elsewhere.

The American Academy of
Pediatrics has begun advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to
the CDC’s overloaded vaccine schedule.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's this guy, didn't you read it? He thinks Mike Adams is hiding the facts! Maybe he is right?! Who knows in this web of lies and deceit?

10-20-2012 The Case Against Mike Adams “Health Ranger” | DISMANTLE THE BEAM PROJECT

If he isn't sure, why is he spewing information that may be completely fabricated? Why can't he get the facts straight before he dirties someone's reputation? People are listening to Mike Adams because he is exposing what is really going on. If you google vaccines, you will get a government site; the very site that is being accused of misrepresentation. Mike Adams and Mercola may make money off of their products but I don't think that is what's motivating them. Show me the evidence (which is your motto) that both of these men are corrupt, and then I'll pay attention, otherwise it's just more of the same.

[LadyShea]

He has reason for his suspicions, which is enough isn't it, peacegirl? Who needs evidence when you have feelings? Something else might be going on!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW peacegirl, I am aware of problems in the FDA. I am not pro-government despite your mistaken conclusion about me...remember, I am and will always be pro-evidence. Where the evidence leads, I will follow.

I asked you specifically, several times, for evidence of corruption within the CDC.

I have already given the evidence. I did not say the entire CDC is corrupt but people within it are, just like there is evidence that there is corruption in the FDA. Pro-evidence is good (no one is arguing with that) but the methodology (ie., empirical testing) can be misleading because it is not a perfect system. There is a lot to be desired since the outcome may be based on one or two variables, leaving out UNKNOWN FACTORS that could play a huge part in determining the accuracy of the results.

[LadyShea]

Evidence!

[LadyShea]

More

’m sure many of Mike’s business deals will be reported on such as the Taiwanese owned publishing company headquartered in Tucson, Arizona and more. I’d like to share one of my own and of my personal experience in Mike’s presence to illustrate the notion that he is mostly about the revenue he generates.

He published a book called Natural Health Solutions which at the time sold for $30.00. This was my first text I read which jetisoned me into the world of natural health research and learning. Mike was inspired me and everything in my world hinged on what he had researched. All of his books were published by his very own company, but peculiarly priced if one were buying so-called free additional items.

I talked about him to everyone. He had a similar book published with about the same page count that could only be purchased as a package deal with five additional items that he valued at $50.00 that was offered as a freebie, but only with the purchase of the book Grocery Warning which amounted to $80.00. That’s a thirty dollar book with fifty dollars worth of free extras totaling eighty dollars, but you couldn’t buy just the book.. I asked him in person if I could. I didn’t need the laminated “honest Food Guide” that you see up above (until now of course since there’s too much soy in our world). So, I asked him in person about the rationale as anyone with common sense would and what I got back blew me away.

“Most sociopaths will become angry or aggressive when their integrity is questioned” – Adams

The business man certainly was pissed that I questioned and pointed out his revenue generating practice. His eyes showed it and his posture changed.. he couldn’t wait for me to walk away. Later, he avoided passing near me and that was proof he had something important to conceal. I even noticed it with his wife who was busy collecting money on their product sales. I just feel badly for David Rainoshek for he has not returned my email regarding Mike Adams.. it seems David has ‘dropped out’ entirely. Why is anyone’s guess, but I think I know what it is.

[peacegirl]

That is just not true. It is your bias against them that is saying this. The word woo itself is a derogatory term and meant to belittle. I see this a lot in these type forums. I don't see it nearly as much in new age forums. I wonder why this is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You used the term woo. I just agreed that it is fitting. And I have carefully explained the criticisms of their research methods every time. Unlike you I do not just spout unsubstantiated opinions: I do my homework. Unless bias is somehow causing the huge flaws in their research?

It's really a derogatory term. If you don't use it, I won't either. That creates a more equal playing field, which you don't seem to want.

That was one study, and the results that came from this one study, just as one empirical test does not prove anything. The empirical test might look airtight, but how many times have the results been overturned by unknown factors that ended up having an influence on the outcome?

2 tests, actually. If you actually read the link, you would see that one studied the question "If we revisited data from 1985, how many people simply labelled "mentally retarded" would now be labelled "Autistic" according to current diagnostic methodology?

I don't buy it. This idea was ruled out. There are more cases of chronic illnesses in children including autism, not just a change in definition.

The other one studies "What is the rate at which autism appears in different age groups"

The conclusions from both, as well as the oldest data we have, suggests a steady 1% incidence rate since the 1950's.

And because of the scandal around the fraudulent study that suggested a link in the first place there actually have been quite a few more.

I don't buy that either. There is a definite increase in autism and parents have every reason to be worried.

But hey, evidence that you do not like can simply be ignored because the chances that it is correct are less than 100% as usual? Whereas any shoddy and flawed study that confirms your bias is yet another reason to hold on to your beliefs in the face of ever-growing evidence to the contrary. It is your standard MO really.

Please stop using my standard MO as an excuse not to take any of my research seriously. That is your MO, which allows you to give shoddy answers to any of my questions.

I get to choose as a parent what I want injected in my child, and the medical establishment has no right to override those rights regardless of which side I'm on. You keep forgetting what this discussion is about.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see you do not disagree. I am glad you simply admit to preferring your bias to evidence.

Sorry but there is evidence of a connection between vaccines and bad outcomes. I'm not even pointing to numbers at this point. Can you admit that there is a problem at all, or are you such an ostrich that you can't get your head out of the sand?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me again how there will be no bias in the Brave New World?

How many times have I said that no one is going to be checking on anyone. If you trust your advice that every parent should get their child vaccinated, without any reservations, then give it. But if a child should get injured as a result, you will have to carry the weight of this responsibility because no one is going to blame you, not even the parent. This compels doctors to be absolutely honest with themselves and, as a result, there will be an admission of genuine ignorance.

If that is true, which I am not convinced of, I will use this information to help me make an informed choice even if my intuition tells me not to vaccinate (I am speaking for parents in general since my children are grown and have children of their own).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I doubt that. You have been impervious to reason before, and simply follow your bias.

Do not get me wrong: I am pretty sure that fraud, bias and good old corruption do exist in evidence-based medicine same as everywhere else. I just do not think that it is rational to disregard whatever I do not like on the basis that this is so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at the example of your friend Mike the Health Ranger. Is one persons opinion that he may have a conflict of interest enough to disregard everything he says?

Of course not. There are lots of completely different reasons to do exactly that, but this is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not aware of any evidence in favor of children being sicker.

I've been offering evidence. Have you listened to any of the videos I presented? This discussion is going nowhere because no one seems to be keen on hearing the other side. Could it be they are afraid it will force them to confront their own bias on this subject?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whenever you linked to any "evidence", it was easily demolished.

No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Often you showed too little understanding of any of the relevant subjects such as the immune system to come to an informed conclusion in any case. However, you consistently ignore this and just move to the next piece of nonsense from a different site, never ever changing your mind.

I won't change my mind unless there is a good reason, and so far I haven't found any.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sorry, but I do not have the time, opportunity or inclination to sit through long videos. Please break it down into a short abstract, link to relevant information and the studies mentioned, and I will have a look.

Look through one each day. It doesn't take long and it may just give you a different point of view. At least you'll get a better understanding of the other side's point of view.

Your posts are way too long. I'll try to answer the rest later but I can't guarantee it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Evidence!

What are you getting at? That he was lying; that he changed his mind; that he didn't have all the information that was out there on soy? And what does this have to do with vaccinations? He is sharing another side to the vaccine dilemma not so much to dispute what science knows about vaccinations (we all know they can cause immunity to certain diseases), but about what science doesn't know and won't admit.

[peacegirl]

That is just not true. It is your bias against them that is saying this. The word woo itself is a derogatory term and meant to belittle. I see this a lot in these type forums. I don't see it nearly as much in new age forums. I wonder why this is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You used the term woo. I just agreed that it is fitting. And I have carefully explained the criticisms of their research methods every time. Unlike you I do not just spout unsubstantiated opinions: I do my homework. Unless bias is somehow causing the huge flaws in their research?

That was one study, and the results that came from this one study, just as one empirical test does not prove anything. The empirical test might look airtight, but how many times have the results been overturned by unknown factors that ended up having an influence on the outcome?

2 tests, actually. If you actually read the link, you would see that one studied the question "If we revisited data from 1985, how many people simply labelled "mentally retarded" would now be labelled "Autistic" according to current diagnostic methodology?

I don't buy it. This idea was ruled out. There are more cases of chronic illnesses in children including autism, not just a change in definition.

The other one studies "What is the rate at which autism appears in different age groups"

The conclusions from both, as well as the oldest data we have, suggests a steady 1% incidence rate since the 1950's.

And because of the scandal around the fraudulent study that suggested a link in the first place there actually have been quite a few more.

I don't buy that either. There is a definite increase in autism and parents have every reason to be worried.

But hey, evidence that you do not like can simply be ignored because the chances that it is correct are less than 100% as usual? Whereas any shoddy and flawed study that confirms your bias is yet another reason to hold on to your beliefs in the face of ever-growing evidence to the contrary. It is your standard MO really.

Please stop using my standard MO as an excuse not to take any of my research seriously. That is your MO, which allows you to give shoddy answers to any of my questions.

I get to choose as a parent what I want injected in my child, and the medical establishment has no right to override those rights regardless of which side I'm on. You keep forgetting what this discussion is about.

I see you do not disagree. I am glad you simply admit to preferring your bias to evidence.

Sorry but there is evidence of a connection between vaccines and bad outcomes. I'm not even pointing to numbers at this point. Can you admit that there is a problem at all, or are you such an ostrich that you can't get your head out of the sand?

Tell me again how there will be no bias in the Brave New World?

How many times have I said that no one is going to be checking on anyone. If you think you are giving good advice to a parent to get their child vaccinated, without any reservations, then give it. But if a child should get injured as a result, you will have to carry the weight of this responsibility because no one is going to blame you, not even the parent. This compels doctors to be absolutely honest with themselves and, as a result, there will be an admission of genuine ignorance.

If that is true, which I am not convinced of, I will use this information to help me make an informed choice even if my intuition still tells me not to vaccinate (I am speaking for parents in general since my children are grown and have children of their own).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I doubt that. You have been impervious to reason before, and simply follow your bias.

Do not get me wrong: I am pretty sure that fraud, bias and good old corruption do exist in evidence-based medicine same as everywhere else. I just do not think that it is rational to disregard whatever I do not like on the basis that this is so.

Look at the example of your friend Mike the Health Ranger. Is one persons opinion that he may have a conflict of interest enough to disregard everything he says?

Of course not. There are lots of completely different reasons to do exactly that, but this is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not aware of any evidence in favor of children being sicker.

I've been offering evidence. Have you listened to any of the videos I presented? This discussion is going nowhere because no one seems to be keen on hearing the other side. Could it be they are afraid it will force them to confront their own bias on this subject?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whenever you linked to any "evidence", it was easily demolished.

No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Often you showed too little understanding of any of the relevant subjects such as the immune system to come to an informed conclusion in any case. However, you consistently ignore this and just move to the next piece of nonsense from a different site, never ever changing your mind.

I won't change my mind unless there is a good reason, and so far I haven't found any.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sorry, but I do not have the time, opportunity or inclination to sit through long videos. Please break it down into a short abstract, link to relevant information and the studies mentioned, and I will have a look.

Look through one each day. It doesn't take long and it may just give you a different point of view. At least you'll get a better understanding of the other side's point of view.

Your posts are way too long. I'll try to answer the rest later but I can't guarantee it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you getting at? That he was lying; that he changed his mind; that he didn't have all the information that was out there on soy? And what does this have to do with vaccinations? He is sharing another side to the vaccine dilemma not so much to dispute what science knows about vaccinations (we all know they can cause immunity to certain diseases), but about what science doesn't know and won't admit.

It's evidence that Mike Adams has an agenda to promote dangerous products like unfermented soy and is probably in league with Al Gore and the New World Order to control our minds!

Look here! Terrifying

The control of the planet in its entirety on the part of a very elite few has never been more evident than it is becoming at this particular moment in time. The recent censorship of my articles on the website Examiner.com, a sort of online newspaper, and their subsequent termination of my column at the behest of Mike Adams and Natural News, which was their response to my exposure of the falsification of news events they (NN and Adams) are participating in, is certainly evidence enough of that. http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-...t-2443250.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was asking where the line for free choice should be drawn and if they should be consequence free.

If there is reckless behavior, such as drinking and driving with a minor in the car, then there needs to be consequences. That is why we have a penal system in a free will society. But you cannot compare this to a parent who refuses to give her children vaccinations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I made one of those choices, and it was not condoned or supported and in fact heavily discouraged, but I did it anyway. I exercised a choice...but it wasn't easy or consequence free. Why should it be?

What exactly do you mean? Why was your choice discouraged?

The information should include all of the up-to-date studies, and the bad reactions that appear to have a causal connection so the parent can decide if the risks outweigh the benefits, or vice versa.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "very real dangers of vaccines" have not been demonstrated in studies. You have yet to offer an actual scientific study to support the anti-vax views, instead giving a bunch of videos. Why is that? Why aren't those scientists proving their points using science?

They are. They are giving studies, and vaccinations are dangerous to some children. Why can't you listen to the videos in your spare time. They aren't that long.

They don't want their patients debating this issue, because they lose control of their status as doctors who are supposed to know what's best for the patient. Ha!!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then parents should exercise their freedom to choose a doctor that is a better fit. I personally interviewed several doctors before my son was even born, to ensure he/she was someone I could work with over the years.

Yes, now there are more holistic doctors who I would choose, but way back when mainstream doctors were IT, and at that time you didn't ask questions. You just did what they said. Actually, I was fired by my pediatrician because I didn't want to have to give my child medicine since he was getting better, and steam came out of his ears.

[LadyShea]

Videos are not studies.

[LadyShea]

What exactly do you mean? Why was your choice discouraged?

Co-sleeping is discouraged by most mainstream doctors who feel it is dangerous, though it is encouraged by those who support attachment parenting.