A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

You have to remember that for PG things work the other way around: she considers her father a genius a priori. Any evidence to the contrary must be caused by bias, and can be safely ignored. If it is anything that can be measured, then "something else must be going on" and she appeals to future evidence that is going to overturn just about everything we think we know about physics. Mention its basic incompatibility with physics, and she says "No it is not, it is just sight that works the exact opposite" which is easy for her because she does not understand physics.

If it cannot be measured, then it is just that no-one understands the book.

Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. It is pretty much an airtight system:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you stop answering my posts. Let's both compromise, okay?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating?

I don't need your participation; I was asking you to kindly back off to make it easier for me when I see you say stupid things that you think are intelligent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Easier for you, how? If I say stupid things then you should have a very easy time of demonstrating that and making yourself look like the bestest and smartest girl.

I'm not out to look like the bestest and smartest girl. Are you being serious right now? You're using baby language.

It's really not difficult and I will walk away. Don't double dare me and don't use this as some obsessive/compulsive ideation that has been rumored.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, why shouldn't I dare you?

I didn't say dare me, I said double dare me. Oh my gosh, I'm using baby language too. What has happened to this thread?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really not difficult and I will walk away. Don't double dare me and don't use this as some obsessive/compulsive ideation that has been rumored.

That is really not the smartest thing you have ever posted Peacegirl. If LadyShea 'Double Dared' you to leave she would have to leave as well to satisfy the 'Dare'. I don't see any reason or inclination for LadyShea to leave.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you numerous times. Where have you been?

You've done nothing more than assert "it is not an example of the modal fallacy". That is not a demonstration or refutation.

No, I'm not going searching just because you ignored my answer, or didn't see from my answer that this is not, in fact, a modal fallacy.

I wouldn't have ignored an answer. If it was another assertion I would have responded with "assertion" and if it was an attempt at a demonstration I would have responded with why I think your demonstration failed.

You are the biggest spokesperson in here, and you know that your opinions are heard. You even told me that yourself.

That's a dodge, Weasel.

Who exactly do you think doesn't know enough about fallacious reasoning to know who to believe?

No, this is not my opinion LadyShea. If that's all it was, do you think I would be working this hard?

Of course it is an opinion. Opinions can be well supported by facts, perfectly in line with all known reality, shared by others, even Universally shared, but they are still opinions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That means people here are going to accept your analysis and conclude that Lessans is wrong, when I know Lessans is not wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What on Earth makes you think anyone is going to blindly accept my analysis?

I didn't say blindly, but when there is a disagreement people will automatically go to a person who represents mainstream thought where they don't have to think too hard. I don't have the same luxury where this discovery is concerned.
[/QUOTE]

Except that when it comes to the discovery, you are blindly accept all that is written without any thought at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have to remember that for PG things work the other way around: she considers her father a genius a priori. Any evidence to the contrary must be caused by bias, and can be safely ignored. If it is anything that can be measured, then "something else must be going on" and she appeals to future evidence that is going to overturn just about everything we think we know about physics. Mention its basic incompatibility with physics, and she says "No it is not, it is just sight that works the exact opposite" which is easy for her because she does not understand physics.

If it cannot be measured, then it is just that no-one understands the book.

Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. It is pretty much an airtight system:

Speaking of 'air tight' I'm beginning to think that peacegirls Information Brain Barrier is keeping out more than just knowledge. It must be blocking oxygen as well as it seems that from the way she is posting, her brain is being deprived of oxygen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The HuffPo articles on the Bailey Banks case was written by anti-vaxxers, so you must account for bias. Hell Generation Rescue took out a full page ad in USA Today about the case. You don't think these people have an agenda?

Did you bother to read the "other side"? Hell did you even bother to read the ruling itself to see if it was being interpreted and reported correctly in the article you sent your son? (I know the answer is no)

From the actual ruling

What do you think, they are going to give in entirely, and make themselves look like fools? They are saving face, is all. If they did give in completely, what would happen? People would be using this as a precedent and using this to prove their children also have been hurt by vaccines. They didn't want this to happen, so they qualify that this was an exceptional case.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Note that he uses PDD-pervasive developmental delay, not PDD-NOS. PDD-NOS is as specific diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. PDD is not. Also, as was brought up during the trial, there is no medical literature at all showing that acute disseminated encephalomyelitis - ADEM is related to autism.

But they also couldn't say it's not. It is much more difficult to find an association than to claim there is none. Disseminated encephalomyelitis (or inflammation of the brain) is what is believed to be the mechanism that begins the downward spiral that is seen in autistic children.

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) involves a brief but intense attack of inflammation (swelling) in the brain and spinal cord that damages the brain's myelin. Myelin is the protective covering of nerve fibers. Myelin is also called white matter due to its color. Because ADEM affects myelin, it is a type of a "demyelinating" disorder - See more at: Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM)Â*|Â*KidsMD Health TopicsÂ*|Â*Boston Children's Hospital

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The title of the ruling itself is Non-autistic developmental delay; Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis; Expert Credibility; Evidentiary Reliability; Scientific Validity; Burden of Proof; Causation in Fact; Proximate Causation Non-Austistic developmental delay. Bailey's own expert witness, Dr. Lopez, testified that he does not suffer from autism, during the trial.

So, the article you sent your son was at the very least misleading right from the get-go.

Bailey Banks most probably suffered an vaccine related injury, which is what the vaccine court if for, as there are risks to vaccines. Far from denying there are risks, the existence of the vaccine courts shows that the risks are known to science and accepted by the government.

So let that be enough LadyShea. He won based on vaccine injury, regardless of the exact causal mechanism involved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

However, it was not demonstrated that the vaccines caused autism as claimed. Also please note that legal rulings are not scientific findings as judges are not scientists.

Why are you so stuck on autism, as if this is the only injury related to vaccines? Legal rulings are usually an admission that the defendant has a case and when there isn't enough counter-evidence to dismiss the case as frivolous.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not out to look like the bestest and smartest girl.

I didn't say dare me, I said double dare me. Oh my gosh, I'm using baby language. What has happened to this thread?

I think something has finally gotten through Peacegirls IBB, maybe there's hope yet.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you so stuck on autism, as if this is the only injury related to vaccines? Legal rulings are usually an admission that the defendant has a case and when there isn't enough counter-evidence to dismiss the case as frivolous.

All the articles you keep posting and referring to are related to autism and talk about autism. The one you sent your son was misleading.

If you want to discuss some other illnesses you think are correlated to vaccines, you first need to name them rather than just say "chronic illnesses", as I've been asking you to for days and days, as well as you will need to post some evidence of a correlation to discuss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you numerous times. Where have you been?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've done nothing more than assert "it is not an example of the modal fallacy". That is not a demonstration or refutation.

Not true. I have showed you, based on this knowledge, that every movement is in the direction of greater satisfaction, not just when making choices. You are so confused over the word 'choice' that I don't know how to get through to you.

No, I'm not going searching just because you ignored my answer, or didn't see from my answer that this is not, in fact, a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wouldn't have ignored an answer.

Well guess what? You did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it was another assertion I would have responded with "assertion" and if it was an attempt at a demonstration I would have responded with why I think your demonstration failed.

Well guess what? It didn't fail. Your demonstration to prove it failed failed because it's not an assertion.

You are the biggest spokesperson in here, and you know that your opinions are heard. You even told me that yourself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a dodge, Weasel.

I have no idea who knows less than you do about fallacious reasoning. The point is people learn from each other except for those people who think they know it all and there's nothing left to learn, which is called arrogance. I am sure you have something to teach me, just as I have something to teach you. It's a two way street. In the case of this discovery, I have something to teach you but your stubborn refusal to take this knowledge seriously has ruined your chances for understanding. You are understandably skeptical, but unfortunately your skepticism has turned into dogmatism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who exactly do you think doesn't know enough about fallacious reasoning to know who to believe?

I think most people in here know enough about the scientific method to be able to point out glaring mistakes on the part of someone's reasoning. But you cannot apply this to Lessans. His reasoning was sound although you're trying desperately to find loopholes where there aren't any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have only added further proof that your opinions are just that: opinions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My opinions are opinions! Yes, that is a true statement. Tautological, but true.

Then hold onto that thought before spouting off your opinion which means nothing in terms of what is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, what are you raving about? This is quite a stupid thing to say. All I can offer in any discussion is my opinions, same as you. Same as anyone.

No, this is not my opinion LadyShea. If that's all it was, do you think I would be working this hard?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it is an opinion. Opinions can be well supported by facts, perfectly in line with all known reality, shared by others, even Universally shared, but they are still opinions.

The fact that man's will is not free is not an opinion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All the articles you keep posting and referring to are related to autism and talk about autism. The one you sent your son was misleading.

If you want to discuss some other illnesses you think are correlated to vaccines, you first need to name them rather than just say "chronic illnesses", as I've been asking you to for days and days, as well as you will need to post some evidence of a correlation to discuss.

Nope, having to put a name on disturbing changes in a child's demeanor right about the time a vaccine was given could easily be dismissed as nothing more than coincidence, which is why labeling odd behaviors as separate and distinct illnesses (that may have the same root cause) could be so misleading. It's better to have a catch all term (until further evidence can give us more insight) that includes autistic behavior as well as other neuro-degenerative symptoms that cannot be easily explained away.

[LadyShea]

It very well might be coincidence, but without some statistics of incidence of specific illnesses to analyze there is nothing to discuss. So, to answer your question again...I am focusing on autism because you are with your sources.

[LadyShea]

Which of these posts below are you considering your refutation against the charge of modal fallacy rather than a mere assertion? If it's not one of these, then you really have to help find it, because I went back several months

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really ashame that this is what it has come down to. Like I told Adam, it is much more than you pick what you pick. You are simplifying this until it loses its value, which is a sham. It is anything but valueless because the proof is there if you would only open your eyes. You just don't want to see it, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope one day you will be convinced, but this has no bearing on its validity. I told you that being a tautology does not change the fact our choice, whatever it is, can only go in one direction, which means that after the choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. This has major significance, and you are conveniently playing it down. FYI, your modal fallacy rebuttal doesn't work either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if I get confirmation that whatever we choose could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying in comparison. This is not an obfuscatory statement.

No Adam, you are doing what LadyShea does. You are asserting that Lessans is wrong because you don't understand that this is a strawman. No one is saying that before a choice is made it is necessarily true that the person has to eat eggs for breakfast. It is only necessarily true that he is considering two or more options. We cannot predict with absolute certainty what choice a person will make. Choice is contingent upon present and antecedent factors that may only be known to the person doing the choosing. There is no prediction that can be made that is absolute because no one knows all the factors involved in a person's choice, but this is, again, a strawman because he is not defining determinism as being able to predict in advance what someone's choice will be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm telling you you are the one that is confused on this, not me.

No one is saying X has to happen. I just told you that you can rebuke this claim by saying I don't have to eat eggs for breakfast, I can if I want to, but I don't have to, therefore saying eating eggs is necessary is a modal fallacy, but this is a strawman because this in no way disproves the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is his proof of determinism.

You are confused but you can't even consider this possibility. You are, once again, too high on your horse. A compulsion does exist, but you're missing the other side of the equation which proves that we are not under a compulsion to do something if we don't want to, which has been confusing philosophers for centuries. They don't understand why the knowledge of determinism does not give anyone an excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite, which you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and don't tell me you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you don't understand this knowledge at all. You really don't, and as a result you will continue to tell me that this is a modal fallacy. It is not. It is a fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we're born to the moment we die. If you cannot understand this, then it's no wonder you keep coming back with fallacious rebuttals.

You skipped right over it. If every moment is a one way street (even the moments before a choice is made by virtue of the fact that the very act of comparing alternatives is a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control), how can you separate before the fact and after? You are very confused on this one point, and I don't know if you will ever get it, but you are not the final word on this. You have always asserted that these are assertions, and they are not. It is you that is making assertions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning is not a trivial mistake.
There are several strawmen...outright lying type strawmen, numbers in a vaccum, and irrelevant facts represented in this single paragraph.

It depends on what the mistakes are. You made a huge deal over trivial mistakes in the book. In your effort to be precise, you are being anal to the point of losing all perspective.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't check the accuracy of these comments. Maybe they were over-exaggerated to show the reason why parents are being called anti-vaxers. Why don't you tell me what the flaws were so I don't have to go scrambling trying to find trivial mistakes that have no bearing on the point she was making.

[/QUOTE]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

Added:

This discovery has nothing to do with anecdotes or faith. Yes, finding answers through observation is an acceptable methodology, and is further confirmed through reliable testing wherever possible. Why are you conflating these terms? Are you doing this in order to make them appear as if they are all the same thing?

[LadyShea]

1, 2, 3, 5 are not actually claims that pro-vaxxers make. They are inaccurate portrayals of the claims made...strawmen

7 and 8 are numbers in a vacuum as they have no meaning in and of themselves

4 is exaggerated

Only 6 isn't a fallacious portrayal of the pro-vax position

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

He's not doing that at all. He's using your discussion of your father's "discovery" and your discussion of vaccination as two different examples of your poor understanding of how knowledge claims can actually be justified. Your father's claims are being dismissed because neither he nor you has provided any good reason to think they are true, not because you have subsequently failed to provide any good reason to think your claims about vaccination are true.

Adam, you barely remember anything about the book. You mumbled a few words that you remembered in the beginning pages, and that's all you've given me. So how can you even attempt to address the issue of whether my father's claims are valid or not? The gall that people have in here is astounding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't proven me wrong;

I don't have to prove you wrong, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the positive claim.

You have made a positive claim that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. I don't believe your research is airtight. For you to make this claim, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making any claims. I am saying I don't know. The fact that ethylmercury has been shown to affect glutathione, an important chemical in the body, indicates that scientists might not have all the pieces of the puzzle. You are simplifying a very complex issue by saying that there has been no association between vaccines and autism even though parents are begging Congress to hear their heartbreaking stories. For you, it's a done deal. They proved no association; now let's move on. It's not that simple.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be a tautology in the sense that whatever one chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you are using this as a means to discredit his entire presentation, which it doesn't. A tautology does not a false proof make, nor does it prove that what comes from this understanding is useless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is tautological. No, that doesn't mean it is false nor does it mean it is useless, it does mean it is completely unfalsifiable...it can't be tested in any way.

No, it can't be tested empirically, but through observation it can be proven. Why can't you just assume he is right. Science is starting to sway in the direction of determinism anyway. He even said that the reasoning can start with man's will is not free, even without the proof because the proof is in the meaning, which can be empirically tested under the right conditions.

Decline and Fall of all Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 40 There is tremendous misunderstanding about the
meaning of determinism, therefore, it is necessary to first demonstrate
why man’s will is not free so the reader can follow the reasoning which
leads to my discovery. The fact that man’s will is not free is the
gateway that allows the reader to come face to face with the fiery
dragon himself. It really doesn’t make any difference whether or not
the proof of determinism is established beforehand because undeniable
proof is established in the meaning; but for those who want proof
before we attack the heart of the problem I shall demonstrate in an
undeniable manner exactly why man’s will is not free. Once it is
proven mathematically — which takes into consideration the
implications — there can be no more opinions or theories expressed
on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying, “I believe the
earth is flat” once they knew for a fact it was round. There is a great
deal of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was
impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because
they were under the impression their reasoning had demonstrated the
falseness of determinism.

You are wrong in your analysis. The proof does not come from formal logic. It comes from observation, and if his observations are right, no logical conclusion can prove that he is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about formal logic? I said his satisfaction principle cannot be tested. Which is a true statement.

The results can be tested by showing that under certain conditions man cannot choose, as the preferable option, to hurt others. If will was free he could choose one or the other in spite of the conditions that prevail. That's impossible when the choice to hurt someone offers less satisfaction.

I cannot stress enough how wrong you are in your conclusions LadyShea. You are completely off base.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How am I wrong or off base? If the statement cannot be empirically tested, and cannot be concluded through logic as you state, then what criteria can be used to accept or reject it's veracity?

Like I said, you are trying to discredit the satisfaction principle by saying it's unfalsifiable, but even if you can't follow his reasoning as to why we are compelled to move in this direction, when this knowledge comes to light the proof of the pudding will be in the eating; in other words, if this law has the power to prevent man from striking a first blow because to do so would not be a preferable alternative under the conditions, this will be proof positive that his observations and reasoning were spot on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no interest in discrediting Lessans...he has no credit to lose. My agenda is to point out bullshit where I see it, and you and Lessans are swimming in it.

There you go again badmouthing him. What do you mean he has no credit to lose?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In order to be discredited, one must first have a good reputation or respect.

So wrong I don't know where to begin.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word "discredit" means loss of reputation or respect. Respect has everything to do with people's opinions, as respect is an opinion someone holds of someone else. Are you using idiosyncratic definitions of words yet again?

Where does Lessans deserve to be discredited? He has never done anything to cause mistrust. You are making stuff up again.

Discredit means to cause mistrust or cast the accuracy of something into doubt. If you say that schooling is important to you, but you never study, your actions discredit you and your words.

403 Forbidden

I don't depend on you or anyone else for the respect I deserve.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? You can respect yourself without depending on anyone else, but respect from other people certainly does depend on other people respecting you.

Yes, but the term is often misappropriated since it justifies disrespect for people whom you feel aren't worthy of your respect. If you understood this book you would realize that every human being is worthy of respectful treatment even though their behavior may be unacceptable. That's why parents have learned to separate behavior from the child when disciplining him.

The discrimination against my father is obvious for those who see it. This attack on his credibility is no different than any other type of discrimination; it just happens to be in the scientific field which you use as an infallible guide.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you aren't even making sense anymore. When it comes to his thoughts as expressed in the book, he has no credibility to attack.

That's what I meant when you used the term "discredit". You are claiming that he has no credit to his name, so therefore he can't be discredited. But you're wrong as usual. You are using your capabilities to determine whether his knowledge is accurate, and that is getting you into trouble.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And yes, if you are using discrimination to mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.", then I am discriminating between Lessans and other scholars and thinkers and scientists. Sure.

I wasn't even thinking in those terms. I was thinking in terms of his discovery, and your discrimination of him based on your lack of understanding. You are showing complete disrespect for him by sarcastically using what he did for a living, and the fact that he was a pool player, as fodder for more laughter, since you equate only those who are university trained to be able to think analytically.

The fact that you call this knowledge bullshit shows me what a self-pontificating person you are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that you call it the one and only answer to world peace, and the most important thing ever thought by anybody, is also pontificating. Why is it okay for you to express your opinions in a pontificating manner but it's not okay for me?

Not true. I am not trying to be a big shot. You are. You are condemning this man without even understanding whether his discovery is genuine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure his ideas are wrong.

Pretty sure isn't good enough LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have failed to convince me otherwise. Dismissing unconvincing ideas and arguments on a small Internet forum doesn't indicate I am trying to be a big shot.

Failing to convince you is one thing. Acting as if your failure to be convinced proves him wrong is quite another.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pronouncing an idea to be the key to ending all evil in the world and trying to usher in a Golden Age for all 6 billion humans...that's dreaming of being a Big Shot. You win!

I can't help it if that's what this knowledge is able to do. What can I say?

You've done this from day one. You are putting yourself on a pedestal as being the one person who knows whether his discovery is valid based on what you have been taught. This is a true obstacle. Ironic, isn't it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not lied, so how can I be a fraud? The rest of this is incoherent.

Your thinking is fraudulent. It is not accurate. Your epistemological standard for determining truth is not airtight by any means. This kind of thinking has become a serious obstacle, which is why I have to move on to a different type of individual. Not necessarily a new age type, but people whose mindsets won't close the door on this knowledge. I don't expect you to change your mind or even be interested in the book once I leave, and that's okay. All of this negative talk about the book could convince anyone interested to lose interest.

You are not making any sense in your snit.

Your calling bullshit is bullshit. Your analysis of this book is wrong, plain and simple, and it disturbs me to think that it's your attitude that is preventing you from keeping an open mind. Your mind is made up, and like I said many times before, unless someone you admire tells you the book is genuine, you will keep acting as if you are the final word on this subject.

[thedoc]

Has anyone noticed that responding to Peacegirl is like poking the idiot with a stick. If a post is made about the book or Lessans she will have an automatic Knee-jerk reaction with a post that often doesn't really relate to the post. She seems to be obsessed with having the last word, and that is why she will never leave this thread as long as someone posts a reply to her nonsense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have made a positive claim that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

I thought we were back talking about the book? Are we going back to vaccines now? Why the sudden gear switch?

Anyway, no I didn't make a positive claim. You are reading things that aren't there again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The HuffPo articles on the Bailey Banks case was written by anti-vaxxers, so you must account for bias. Hell Generation Rescue took out a full page ad in USA Today about the case. You don't think these people have an agenda?

Did you bother to read the "other side"? Hell did you even bother to read the ruling itself to see if it was being interpreted and reported correctly in the article you sent your son? (I know the answer is no)

From the actual ruling

Note that he uses PDD-pervasive developmental delay, not PDD-NOS. PDD-NOS is as specific diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. PDD is not. Also, as was brought up during the trial, there is no medical literature at all showing that acute disseminated encephalomyelitis - ADEM is related to autism.

The title of the ruling itself is Non-autistic developmental delay; Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis; Expert Credibility; Evidentiary Reliability; Scientific Validity; Burden of Proof; Causation in Fact; Proximate Causation Non-Austistic developmental delay. Bailey's own expert witness, Dr. Lopez, testified that he does not suffer from autism, during the trial.

So, the article you sent your son was at the very least misleading right from the get-go.

Bailey Banks most probably suffered an vaccine related injury, which is what the vaccine court if for, as there are risks to vaccines. Far from denying there are risks, the existence of the vaccine courts shows that the risks are known to science and accepted by the government.

However, it was not demonstrated that the vaccines caused autism as claimed. Also please note that legal rulings are not scientific findings as judges are not scientists.

Added:

Regardless of the label that is given to a particular behavior for diagnostic purposes, the fact is that vaccines are risky to some children and the vaccine courts were created for that very reason. That is enough for a parent to have the right to reject a vaccine if they think the risk is not worth the benefit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar is also gifted...sort of a requirement for being an astrophysicist.

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Also, not in evidence: any reason to believe that Lessans was particularly "gifted" at anything but writing self-congratulatory butthurt.

You are such a copy cat Adam. Why don't you think before you talk. Your words are empty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating? Why is there any compromise on the table. If you don't like it, walk away. Why is it so difficult for you?

Why is it so difficult for you and all those people who are having a problem with this discussion to stop coming here? I can walk away, and I will when the time is right, but it would make it easier for me if I wasn't tempted to answer the butthurt responses I am reading on a daily basis.