A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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

AIRNow

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know what air is, but it seemed like you didn't by calling it a "life giving molecule" and asserting that air cannot cause disease or illness.

[peacegirl]

Another rescue. Can't help getting teary eyed.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Actually, no. Einstein ultimately described the cosmological constant as his "greatest blunder" or somesuch, and alternating current (championed by George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla) won the DC-AC war.

So Einstein made no contribution to mankind, and neither did Edison or Mendel or other discoverers who were confident that they were on the right track? Is that what you're saying?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Medical doctors do not have all the answers. I would not go to a plumber if I had a medical concern. I would go to a doctor and hopefully the doctor would send me to the right specialist if he couldn't identify the problem. Medical books on the other hand, which doctors use in their schooling, are not always correct because they get outdated. Additionally, I do not trust many of the studies that claim vaccines are perfectly safe due to a significant error rate.

Neither Gary S. Goldman nor Neil Z. Miller have any medical training at all. So I ask again, since you weaseled. In your opinion are non-doctors with an agenda credible sources of medical information? Why or why not?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People did judge both Edison and Einstein as being arrogant and crackpots and all manner of things. Not all of their "discoveries" turned out to be viable either. Both men had failed ideas* and made mistakes. Those ideas that were validated, however, had hard evidence to support them.

Edison's Failed Inventions

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswir...t-the-hip.html

Einstein's 23 Biggest Mistakes - Business Insider

You are missing the reason for why this was brought up. They were not arrogant men just because they discovered something that had a major impact on our world. Thedoc seems to get the two characteristics of confidence and arrogance mixed up. I was not talking about their mistakes. Anyone who discovers something valuable has to make mistakes in the process. Through their mistakes these men became successful. Someone said (I forget who) that he was fortunate for all the mistakes he made because it was one less thing that he knew didn't work until he found the thing that did work.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So Einstein made no contribution to mankind, and neither did Edison or Mendel or other discoverers who were confident that they were on the right track? Is that what you're saying?

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither Gary S. Goldman nor Neil Z. Miller have any medical training at all. So I ask again, since you weaseled. In your opinion are non-doctors with an agenda credible sources of medical information? Why or why not?

It depends on what sources they are using. My father's work could easily be dismissed just because he was not in the field that expected a discovery of this type to be made. You have to look at what they are bringing to the table, not just their formal credentials. Remember that little boy who was too young to be licensed as a doctor, but he saved someone's life when no one else was there to help? You never know what information may be valid. Why can't you check the facts before you conclude that a person is a liar and a fraud?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

show spoiler

Well tell me what you mean then. I like your spoilers. They somehow lighten the heavy feeling in here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well tell me what you mean then. I like your spoilers. They somehow lighten the heavy feeling in here.

It is unbelievable that anyone could 'not know' as much as you do.

Who leads you around when you are away from the computer?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the reason for why this was brought up. They were not arrogant men just because they discovered something that had a major impact on our world.

They might have been arrogant. Certainly they were called arrogant by some during their lifetimes.

As for being sure of their discoveries...yes they were very confident in some of them, yet very wrong as well.

You refuse to admit even the possibility that Lessans is wrong about anything. Lessans refused to admit he might not be correct. The fact is that even smart people make mistakes. Hell some even say the smarter the person the bigger the mistakes they make.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends on what sources they are using. My father's work could easily be dismissed just because he was not in the field that expected a discovery of this type to be made. You have to look at what they are bringing to the table, not just their credentials.

What are Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller bringing to the table in these papers? What sources did they use? Do you even know? Did they do medical tests? How? Did they do phone surveys? I didn't say anything about credentials, I said training and experience (see your own quote below for why I chose these over the word credentials on purpose). How did they receive medical training and experience...did you check? Did you do a single bit of digging to find out anything at all about the papers you posted??

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he wasn't trained, of course not, but if he was trained, the damn credentials mean nothing. I want someone who is experienced (key word) regardless of the damn credentials which can be misleading.

Remember that little boy who was too young to be licensed as a doctor, but he saved someone's life when no one else was there to help?

I remember you telling that story, but I don't remember it being verified at all.

Why can't you check the facts before you conclude that a person is a liar and a fraud?

Hypocrite. I did check the facts. How do you think I found out that neither Gary S. Goldman nor Neil Z. Miller have any medical experience or training, and both run anti-vax organizations? FYI, I also know the methodology used to write those papers. You certainly can't be bothered to check any facts or verify anything at all.

Also note, I never called either man a liar or a fraud. They are both up front about their actual credentials and their antivax work

[LadyShea]

Statistics can be misleading, right peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would also like to add that this is not just about the statistics which can be misleading.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Statistics can be very misleading.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Statistics can be misleading, right peacegirl?

Just this once I must agree with Peacegirl. I took a course in statistics and one of the first things the Prof. said was that "Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want." Data gathered is filtered through a set of criteria that label some as invalid for one reason or another all determined by whoever is conducting the survey. Demographics are the most common filter in determining who's response is valid and who's is not. A responder might have not enough wealth, or too much, or live in the wrong area of town, or simply give the wrong answer. Unless you are conducting the survey or gathering the data, it is unlikely that you will see the raw data, and be able to determine which responses were thrown out and which were kept, and why.

[thedoc]

56% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[LadyShea]

I agree with her too, but I am setting up a point that can't be made until she responds to my post about Goldman and Miller

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They might have been arrogant. Certainly they were called arrogant by some during their lifetimes.

As for being sure of their discoveries...yes they were very confident in some of them, yet very wrong as well.

You refuse to admit even the possibility that Lessans is wrong about anything.

LadyShea, my father was a human being. As such, he made mistakes just like everybody else. He learned from those mistakes. You want me not only to admit that he was a human being and made mistakes; you want me to admit that he was wrong or could be wrong where his discoveries are concerned. This I will not do because I don't believe he was wrong, and I will not kowtow to anyone just because they don't like that he had confidence in what he had discovered.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans refused to admit he might not be correct. The fact is that even smart people make mistakes. Hell some even say the smarter the person the bigger the mistakes they make.

How many times do I have to tell you the effort he went through once he believed he was on the right track? It took him many years to understand the magnitude of what he discovered, and then more years to put it into the kind of wording that others could comprehend. He also burned his first set of books because he was still in the early stages of understanding what he had uncovered, and did not express it accurately. Burning a set of books indicates to me that he made mistakes. What more do you want from me?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He also burned his first set of books because he was still in the early stages of understanding what he had uncovered, and did not express it accurately. Burning a set of books indicates to me that he made mistakes.

It indicates to me that he was unhinged. What on Earth was the point of burning his books? What did that achieve?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1163658]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends on what sources they are using. My father's work could easily be dismissed just because he was not in the field that expected a discovery of this type to be made. You have to look at what they are bringing to the table, not just their credentials.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller bringing to the table in these papers? What sources did they use? Do you even know? Did they do medical tests? How? Did they do phone surveys? I didn't say anything about credentials, I said training and experience (see your own quote below for why I chose these over the word credentials on purpose). How did they receive medical training and experience...did you check? Did you do a single bit of digging to find out anything at all about the papers you posted??

Yes I do, and I will further study what experience and research these men had. But it isn't just these two men who you are now focusing on; there are many people (doctors, immunologists, toxicologists, et al) who are questioning the safety of vaccines, especially the new vaccine schedule given to infants. Are you saying they are all wrong and have nothing at all to say? Are you implying that this topic is finished, and everyone should be pro-vaccine just because the studies did not find find an association? What if the studies are not reliable when it comes to certain populations? Empirical studies are famous for being misleading when it comes to health issues.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he wasn't trained, of course not, but if he was trained, the damn credentials mean nothing. I want someone who is experienced (key word) regardless of the damn credentials which can be misleading.

Remember that little boy who was too young to be licensed as a doctor, but he saved someone's life when no one else was there to help?

I remember you telling that story, but I don't remember it being verified at all.

Why can't you check the facts before you conclude that a person is a liar and a fraud?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hypocrite.

What makes me a hypocrite? I don't go around saying that people are incapable of offering accurate information just because they don't have certain credentials.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did check the facts. How do you think I found out that neither Gary S. Goldman nor Neil Z. Miller have any medical experience or training, and both run anti-vax organizations?

Heck, even doctors don't know everything LadyShea. They often have no choice but to accept the recommendations put out by the APA because they are members and have to follow their guidelines. My doctor could be excellent at certain things, but have no way of knowing whether vaccines are safe for my child in particular.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

FYI, I also know the methodology used to write those papers. You certainly can't be bothered to check any facts or verify anything at all.

That is not true either. I have given you two papers where they talk about design flaws. You can have a perfectly designed study, and the conclusions can be right for that particular cohort that was used in the study, but it does not mean it necessarily is correct across the board.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also note, I never called either man a liar or a fraud. They are both up front about their actual credentials and their antivax work

You insinuated it whether you used the exact words or not. You are playing semantic games now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It indicates to me that he was unhinged. What on Earth was the point of burning his books? What did that achieve?

Why are you constantly judging his actions as being abnormal? You have an agenda to find anything you can to discredit me and him. It's not working and it never will. He was frustrated at that point and didn't want people to read what he wasn't satisfied with. He saved two or three books, which I have kept.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you constantly judging his actions as being abnormal?

Burning books is abnormal. Do you dispute this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What makes me a hypocrite?

Most of what you do, but in this particular instance it is telling LadyShea to fact check while you refuse to do so.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1163578]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I notice another curious connection to some of the really bad religious apologies you get from the less intelligent among the fundies. it seems to go roughly like this:

Science does not give perfect answers, and this means that every opinion is equally valid. So a belief in a literal Ark of Noah is just as valid and rational as a belief that the earth is many millions of years old.

They too argue about a controversy that they generate themselves, point out that this means that there are multiple opinions, and then pretend these opinions are all equally well supported and equally valid. If this is to be considered logical, then a vocal minority that believes in fairies must be considered rational, and a belief int he existence of fairies rational.

Also, if we apply her logic to blood transfusions, things get a bit grizzly:

You cannot say for sure blood transfusions are 100% safe. In fact, people sometimes die from them. So if a parent wants to refuse to let a child get blood transfusions, then the state should let them because they love them more than life itself (insert further vapid and saccharine nonsense)

That is not a great analogy because refusal of a vaccine does not necessarily mean a death sentence, whereas if a child is bleeding to death, without a transfusion death will be inevitable.

What a lame and transparent attempt at weaseling. Transfusions are not just given when death is inevitable without them, so I am afraid the "analogy" holds.

I agree that there is a danger among some religious groups that refuse transfusions because they have been taught that transferring blood from one person to another is forbidden, and that if God wants this person to live he will, and if he dies it is God's will. Most people when comparing a blood transfusion to no blood transfusion will choose the transfusion (even if it may not be 100% safe) because the alternative is death.

Nonsense. The alternative is a risk.

And transfusions are not 100% safe, nor do we truly understand all the effects they may have in the long run

So by your logic, parents should have the right to refuse to let their children have them. Because they love them the bestest-wested ever and are always their best advocates.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Statistics can be misleading, right peacegirl?

That is true, so there has to be a way to double check these numbers on both sides.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Burning books is abnormal. Do you dispute this?

Of course I dispute this. It was not an abnormal thing to do considering that he had very little room for books that he wasn't going to sell. It was perfectly understandable. What other last ditch effort are you going to use to try to ruin this man's reputation and credibility? You will stop at nothing, no matter how destructive and wrong you happen to be.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I dispute this.

You think burning books is normal? When is the last time you burned a book? When is the last time you heard of anyone doing this? Do you have some idiosyncratic definition of normal? Or are you just completely out of touch with reality? Burning books is not normal.