A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Liar. Your initial answer was based on the link title, as it showed zero indication that you had read the article and understood that it was a case of a disagreement between two parents. I am also pretty sure you thought it happened in the US, since you have no idea how judges are appointed in the UK, so assumed some political motiviation.

If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't have responded with "For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical", nor would you have assumed political motivation.

Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no court making these decisions (since these issues won't come up; although there will be lawmakers that will clarify what is a hurt and what isn't) just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable), especially when a no blame environment will compel them to be honest with themselves that they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe or which children could be adversely affected.

[LadyShea]

Would there be photons located on Earth, at the eyes and on camera film or digital sensors, before the photons traveling from the Sun arrived on Earth? You have said yes a dozen times, shall I dig up the quotes for you?

Lessans didn't even take the mechanics of camera film and photoreceptors into account. That there must be photons physically located on camera film for a photograph to be taken didn't even occur to him...he never mentioned cameras. You have had to try to reconcile this, and it cannot be reconciled.

Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.

It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor

The very belief that photons have to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina or film is exactly what is being disputed

It's not a belief nor have you disputed it at all, you've simply claimed magic and left it at that. You have to show that it is physically possible for something that is traveling to be somewhere where it hasn't reached yet. You have photons in two places at once, which is fine, if you can demonstrate that to be possible with physics

If I am traveling in my car between your house and mine, can I already be at your house?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no authority making these decisions just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable) especially when they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe and which child could be adversely affected.

It's unethical and morally unjustifiable to prevent children having vaccines because a parent is crazy and refuses to acknowledge the mounts of evidence suggesting vaccines are not just safe, but orders of magnitude safer than not having the vaccine.

In the new world, everyone will be vaccinated!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no court making these decisions (since these issues won't come up; although there will be lawmakers that will clarify what is a hurt and what isn't) just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable), especially when a no blame environment will compel them to be honest with themselves that they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe or which children could be adversely affected.

OMG and you claim you no longer weasel? This is a flat out lie.

Where in your initial response, which is clearly and unambiguously what I was asking about, is there anything indicating you were talking about the new world that doesn't exist?

1. Yes, this is probably politically motivated.
Definitely referring to current world, specifically the US

2. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical.
Talking about this world, and this case

3. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded.
No new world in this either

[LadyShea]

Weasel all you want, because you are then shown to be a liar. In this case, I guarantee your first thought when you read the link title was that some US government functionary took the case to court to have the kids forcibly vaccinated against the parents' wishes.

You can deny it, but your initial response tells the true story.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are tens of thousands of kids who were born after thimerosal was removed, so could not have been vaccinated before that. You should be able to look at autism stats for kids born after 2003 in the US to see if the rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady...right? You don't even have to look at "official" stats...see what the autism activist parents are saying if you prefer (Autism Speaks, Generation Rescue). Also, other countries have completely different health care systems, so might not have the same political and monetary pressures you feel are corrupting all of our scientists, so look for stats elsewhere too.

Even take the mercury question out of it completely, and simply answer whether autism rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady based on your research.

You are the one that has been arguing that we are experiencing an unprecedented epidemic of "chronic issues" in children that might be related to vaccines, yet you are weaseling away from even naming these issues and exploring them individually. How can you know if vaccines are involved if you don't even know the exact condition you are researching or if it is a problem at all? Is autism one of them?

I don't have to know if vaccines are involved to be suspicious that they are and act accordingly. Many of the studies are lacking in integrity, or are incomplete. The fact that Amish children have virtually no autism to speak of is not something to brush aside. There could be other reasons for this other than vaccines, but there could be a connection as well. There are too many unknowns. As far as increases in autism even though thimerosal has been removed, some say autism has gone up; some say it has decreased. I don't know who is right at this point. I hope you will watch this video to hear what a pediatrician has to say and don't just dismiss it as being hokey pokey.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...Interview.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel all you want, because you are then shown to be a liar. In this case, I guarantee your first thought when you read the link title was that some US government functionary took the case to court to have the kids forcibly vaccinated against the parents' wishes.

You can deny it, but your initial response tells the true story.

I admit that I didn't read the whole thing, but I knew it was between two parents with opposing ideas on vaccinations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as increases in autism even though thimerosal has been removed, some say autism has gone up; some say it has decreased. I don't know who is right at this point.

Why don't you know? Even if you don't know why haven't you formed an opinion? Can you not determine whose information to trust? Why not? What criteria are you using to try to verify the information you are reading , and are both sides of this particular issue really so equally compelling? Why is it even difficult? Does nobody who is interested in this topic try to track autism diagnoses?

I don't want to see videos, which is just people talking about their opinions. I want to see actual scientific information and analysis. The guy is a doctor, he knows how to write a paper with proper citations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I know what I"m writing. Just because he's not running for office doesn't mean he isn't part and parcel of the political system that appointed him. Don't you think he knows what the conservative party expects (which is to answer conservatively and in keeping with the times), and don't you think this has an effect on his decision?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hilarious! Keep this going peacegirl, it's great. Tell me more about how high court judges in the UK are appointed, and why it's far more sensible to assume he's part of a ruling class conspiracy than that your nutty crackpot sources are nutty crackpots.

High Court judges, as with the other Senior Judiciary are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 a new Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the political arena. High Court judges, as with other judges, are now appointed on the basis of open competition.

High Court judge (England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not perpetuating lies Dragar. If anything, I'm promoting what many toxicologists and biochemists are already aware of; that vaccines are not as safe as government claims they are.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You idiot. The government doesn't claim anything; doctors are the ones who make the claims of safety. You think the frootloops out there are divine oracles of information, while ignoring every other medical professional that disagrees with you (the vast, vast majority).

That's just not true. Doctors are getting recommendations from the APA which get their recommendations from the pharmaceutical industry which is backed by government.

Who Says There is No Money in Making Vaccines? At Least $5.7 Billion Given to Vaccine Manufacturers in 2011 by US Gov’t

Vaccine manufacturers get billions of dollars from government contracts.
In 2011, the US Federal government awarded 6 pharmaceutical corporations over 5.7 Billion to manufacture children’s vaccines alone.

According to information on the Centers for Disease Control and Federal Business Opportunities websites, the contracts were for the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. [1,2]

The VFC program purchases the vaccines from the vaccine manufacturer. The vaccines are then distributed to state health departments and territorial public health agencies. In turn, children who couldn’t normally afford vaccines are supposed be injected at no cost. [3]

Many vaccine supporters use examples like the VFC program as indisputable proof of kindness on the part of the government and pharmaceutical companies. I think most parents have heard how generous, caring, and loving they are, haven’t you?

I’d like for you to consider an alternative motive when looking at the contract amounts: a corporate agenda.

Before we get into the individual contract numbers and the corporations who received the money, I’d like to take a moment and share these 4 facts with you:

Pharmaceutical companies care about profits and shareholders, not your children.[4]

Since 1989, pharmaceutical companies have paid only 2.3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries. Given the total lifetime care of a vaccine-injured child, many parents believe this figure should be substantially higher.[5]
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Vaccine manufacturers (and doctors!) are given complete immunity from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their vaccine(s). No other industry enjoys this level of protection from a product that could injure a child! [6]
Some of the same pharmaceutical companies listed below have been charged with criminal acts by the Department of Justice.[7]

See more at: Who Says There is No Money in Making Vaccines? At Least $5.7 Billion Given to Vaccine Manufacturers in 2011 by US Gov’t

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you know? Can you not determine whose information to trust? Why not? What criteria are you using to try to verify the information you are reading , and are both sides of this particular issue really so equally compelling? Why is it even difficult? Does nobody who is interested in this topic try to track autism diagnoses?

I don't want to see videos, which is just people talking about their opinions. I want to see actual scientific information and analysis. The guy is a doctor, he knows how to write a paper with proper citations.

Just hear him out LadyShea. It's 16 minutes long. What is 16 minutes if you learn something that you may not have known before? Are you that afraid of hearing something that might give you food for thought? Maybe it won't, but what's the harm especially when I am making an effort to read what you post (I am guilty too of not reading everything but I will, especially if it's important to you).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just not true. Doctors are getting recommendations from the APA which get their recommendations from the pharmaceutical industry which is backed by government.

Dragar is in the UK, and the case being discussed was in the UK. Do you have similar criticisms of the British public healthcare system? If so what evidence are THEY based on?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just hear him out LadyShea. It's 16 minutes long. What is 16 minutes if you learn something that you may not have known before? Are you that afraid of hearing something that might give you food for thought? Maybe it won't, but what's the harm especially when I am making an effort to read what you post (I am guilty too of not reading everything but I will, especially if it's important to you).

Why are you unable to transcribe the verifiable parts of what he says and summarize his most important points? Opinions are only worthwhile as a jumping off point for research. Why do you stop at "food for thought" rather then get to the actual meat?

Also, you skipped most of my post. Why have you been unable to form an opinion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is why you need to take your own advice and take a good look in the mirror. You really seem to have no conception of how poorly you have behaved throughout this thread.

Well I am not your test subject, so if that's why you're here, you can leave now. You have heard nothing I said, so it's no use explaining.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said in the early days of this thread when I felt backed into a corner I may have weaseled, but I have no reason to now.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What's with this "may have" crap? Even now you can't be honest about how you have behaved. And of course you still have reason to weasel. You shouldn't, but you will. As soon as I ask you anything about light and vision you will immediately begin weaseling again, because you know full well that you can't make any more sense of it than we can.

That's not true either. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is your motive Spacemonkey? To prove to everyone that I don't know how to do research, and therefore could not know whether Lessans has a discovery or not?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Motive fallacy. No, I'm not using it against Lessans. Everyone but you is already quite satisfied that he has been refuted already. The point is that you don't know how to do proper research, and that this is another area where you could seek to improve your behaviour. You could learn how to research.

There is definitely an appeal to motive. Thank you for the reference. As far as everyone but me being quite satisfied that he has been refuted already doesn't mean a darn thing as far as I'm concerned. Nobody in here has read the book in its entirety, therefore no one is in a position to refute or confirm its contents.

[LadyShea]

Many of the studies are lacking in integrity, or are incomplete.

How do you know this? Can you show me the proof (rather than someone's opinion) that they are incomplete or lacking in integrity?

The fact that Amish children have virtually no autism to speak of is not something to brush aside.

This has not been demonstrated to be true, yet. Do you have actual proof that there is virtually no autism amongst the Amish, or are you relying on opinions and self reporting?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a fair statement that opinions are only worthwhile as a jumping off point for research, but this guy has made a lot of good points. He is better at expressing himself than I am. I am asking you kindly to hear what he has to say. You are being purposely stubborn. I am asking you to meet me halfway like I'm meeting you.

Also, you skipped most of my post. Why have you been unable to form an opinion?

I cannot form an opinon on autism as it relates thimerosal if that's what you're referring to, because I really don't know if autism is actually increasing or decreasing, or staying the same. Some of the studies show that autism is increasing but whether the studies are reliable, or if they are skewed in favor of their premise that autism is increasing, is questionable according to some researchers.

Patterns in autism as exposure to thimerosal in vaccines during early childhood has decreased. Today, all routinely recommended pediatric vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts. It was gradually replaced by other non mercury compounds, and some vaccines have been formulated so they don't need preservatives. However, the preservative is still used in multiuse vials of flu vaccines.

Autism Vaccines, autism thimerosal vaccine, autism mmr, children vaccination

The Fallacy of Thimerosal Removal & Autism Increase: A Failure of Science, A Bigger Failure to Children Worldwide

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/t...children-.html

This is hysterical!

Activist Post: How the Drug Companies Make Vaccines

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know this? Can you show me the proof (rather than someone's opinion) that they are incomplete or lacking in integrity?

This has not been demonstrated to be true, yet. Do you have actual proof that there is virtually no autism amongst the Amish, or are you relying on opinions and self reporting?

Autism is a difficult disorder to miss, as it is characterized by noticeably abnormal or impaired development in social interaction and communication and a markedly restricted array of activities and interests. And while scientific consensus claims autism has been around for millennia at generally the same prevalence, that prevalence is now considered to be one in every 166 children born in the United States.

Therefore, with this devastating statistic in mind, one reporter set out to analyze the autism rates among Amish communities. Why? Because perhaps searching for autistic Amish children would reveal clues to the cause of autism ... and it did.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-part-one.aspx

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]High Court judges, as with the other Senior Judiciary are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 a new Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the political arena. High Court judges, as with other judges, are now appointed on the basis of open competition.

Great, so are they appointed by politicians or not?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that if the object is large enough and bright enough (such as the example of the Sun being turned on), we would be able to see the Sun when it is first ignited for this very reason. In this account we are not receiving the image from the light itself, which would involve time; we are seeing the object because it is within our visual range and because it meets the requirements that would allow the object to be seen.

These reasons and these requirements explain nothing about how this is supposed to happen, and this is where you have failed to explain, or suggest, some experiment or test that would demonstrate these reasons and requirements. You are the one claiming efferent vision is valid, so it is your responsibility to suggest the means to test and prove the claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun were hot enough upon igniting, we would see it because the light resulting from fusion (bringing together 4 hydrogen nuclei to make helium) would create enough brightness that we could see it instantly, not 8 minutes later. Please don't answer this post because I don't want to get into this discussion again.

That explains how the Sun makes light, (if correct), but it doesn't explain how the light gets from the sun instantly to our eyes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm assuming the parents went to court because they couldn't solve the issue on their own. But it seems to me that the mother was at a disadvantage because the judge, being part of a political system, is representing the people therefore he would naturally side with the father since not vaccinating (according to that time period) is something only the fringe of society or the destitute do.

So now you are claiming that all these 'Wooovians' you've been quoting as authorities are on the fringe of society or are destitute? Either would explain why they make the claims they do, - just to get attention.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not arguing against it; I'm saying this is why they would side with the father over the mother. It's no surprise.

Now you agree that all children should be vaccinated?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, I don't watch Judge Judy. Relying on expert witnesses for the data is using the very data that many anti-vaxers are claiming has been fudged.

Do you believe that it might be possible that the anti-vaxers don't have the expertise to know whether the data has been fudged or not?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would there be photons located on Earth, at the eyes and on camera film or digital sensors, before the photons traveling from the Sun arrived on Earth? You have said yes a dozen times, shall I dig up the quotes for you?

Lessans didn't even take the mechanics of camera film and photoreceptors into account. That there must be photons physically located on camera film for a photograph to be taken didn't even occur to him...he never mentioned cameras. You have had to try to reconcile this, and it cannot be reconciled.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have said countless times that light has to be at the object for there to be a mirror image (so to speak) whether it's at the retina or at the film. It makes no difference because it's the same phenomenon. And don't be so cock sure of yourself (like you did with the modal fallacy) that this cannot be reconciled.

Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor

No, that is not true. Why do you think I keep saying that efferent visiion is the polar opposite of afferent vision, which makes it unnecessary for light to travel to Earth for an object that is within optical range to be seen, even if said object is thousands of miles away.

The very belief that photons have to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina or film is exactly what is being disputed

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a belief nor have you disputed it at all, you've simply claimed magic and left it at that. You have to show that it is physically possible for something that is traveling to be somewhere where it hasn't reached yet. You have photons in two places at once, which is fine, if you can demonstrate that to be possible with physics

We're not talking about travel LadyShea. There is NO travel time. We are using the light that is at the retina to see the object. We see the object because of light's presence, but light alone is bringing nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I am traveling in my car between your house and mine, can I already be at your house?

You keep using that analogy and it doesn't apply.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you believe that it might be possible that the anti-vaxers don't have the expertise to know whether the data has been fudged or not?

I cannot guarantee that every person who is an anti-vaxer is honest and knows how to interpret data, but for the most part there are a wide range of anti-vaxers from toxicologists to clinicians to doctors to epidemiologists who are saying the same thing; that there is evidence that vaccines given to newborns at the rate they are given is problematic and something to be concerned about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now you agree that all children should be vaccinated?

I'm not arguing over the need to have the court make the decision, if it can't be solved any other way. But it's not a surprise that the courts would side with the father.