A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

If a person is not on his deathbed, and he doesn't want a transfusion because of potential risks, he has the right to reject this therapy. What's so difficult?

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsense. The alternative is a risk.

If you are bleeding out from a gunshot wound, and have a few minutes to live, the alternative is not a risk, it's death.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

True, they try to reduce that risk as much as possible, but it's not risk free especially when transfusions often contain not just one person's blood, but many.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Most parents would do whatever it takes to make sure their child survives, and if the child needed a transfusion, they would opt for it in a heartbeat. It all boils down to the situation they are confronted with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it isn't just these two men who you are now focusing on

The last 3 articles you posted trying to refute my points were by these two men, so those are the sources I am investigating for credibility.

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?

You aren't posting papers and articles by credible people. If you do, and they pass even a simple test of "do they have expertise in this area", then I will pay more attention. As it is I don't care what a computer scientist has to say about epidemiology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You were never in a situation like this, so you have no room to talk. Give it up already. You are making yourself look really really foolish because people can easily see through you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Histrionics run in the family obviously. A big, theatrical gesture like that is pretty standard for such melodramatic people

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The last 3 articles you posted trying to refute my points were by these two men, so those are the sources I am investigating for credibility.

Here is an older article by Miller but many of his points still hold even though it's many years later. There was a rebuttal to this article which I will also give you. He does mention there are some points that he could not dispute.

Immunization Ploys
Are Parents Being Manipulated?

30 Tactics Used by the Medical Profession
to Hoodwink the Public

Medical health authorities, including doctors, nurses, and other members of the allopathic fraternity, employ a number of strategies designed to elicit parental submission to vaccine guidelines. Currently, parents are expected to grant authorities permission to toxify their children's pure and sacred little bodies with more than 30 blends of rare germs, bacteria, and other foul substances -- all before they enter school!

To adequately assess the relevance of vaccine-related news, or the perils of vaccine-related situations you may find yourself in -- and to increase your knowledge about how to protect your loved ones -- several of the more common vaccine-related schemes you're likely to encounter are included in the following section, along with samples of each.

1. Calling the Shots "Immunizations." Numerous studies indicate that vaccines cannot be relied upon to boost the immune system and protect an individual from contracting the disease the vaccines were designed to offset. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health reported 769 cases of mumps in school children. But 632 of these cases (82 percent) occurred in children who were previously vaccinated against this disease.(119) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 89 percent of all school-age children who recently contracted measles had been vaccinated against the disease.(120-122) And the New England Journal of Medicine published a study revealing that the pertussis vaccine "failed to give...protection against the disease." In fact, more than 80 percent of cases in a recent epidemic occurred in children who had received regular doses of the shot.(123,124)

According to Dr. Sandra Huffman, head of Nurture: The Center to Prevent Childhood Malnutrition, "Increasing Americans' breastfeeding rate would prevent more childhood diseases -- and deaths -- than [vaccination programs endorsed by the government]."(125) A distinction must therefore be made: breastfed babies are immunized;(126-128) children who are injected with germs and other toxic substances are vaccinated.

Calling the shots "preventive medicine" is deceptive as well. According to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, pioneering author of Aerobics, "My concept of preventive medicine is trying to prevent the things that kill us. Infectious disease is way down the list."(129) (Dr. Cooper was ostracized from the medical community for promoting exercise to improve health!)

2. Rationalization and Denial. Medical personnel find it difficult to confront the vaccine issue head-on. It is much easier to falsely justify the use of vaccines or simply reject the idea that they may be unsafe and ineffective. Some doctors become so agitated when the topic is raised, they refuse to even discuss it. Doctors who are willing to exchange ideas and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines often rely upon rationalization and denial.

The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, "In this article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will...offer some suggestions for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy." He also plainly states, "A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of DTP-induced brain damage."(130) He makes his recommendation in spite of the horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment.(131)

http://thinktwice.com/ploys.htm

---------------------------
Christopher Dodunski (ID #97205760) Page 1
An Evaluation of the web article...
Immunization Ploys
Are Parents Being Manipulated?
30 Tactics Used by the Medical Profession to Hoodwink the Public

<snip>

Notwithstanding, the article raises some valid arguments:
“only three cases of whooping cough were discovered... all three of them in
children who were vaccinated”

Although the website contains little paid advertising, the home page features several
books on vaccination – at least two of which authored by Neil Miller. Therefore, Neil
Miller stands to profit from visitors to the website.

Currency

Although the webpage copyright is dated 1996–2010, the excerpt is from a 1995 article.
The world of medicine is fast changing, and so the message is sure to suffer as a result
of the now sixteen year old information contained in the article.
The Thinktwice website contains many links to external, related websites, and ensuring
these are kept up-to-date would require ongoing housekeeping. A check of these links
confirmed their currency, including the locally hatched 'NZ Immunisation Awareness

Society'.
Content & Coverage

Clearly, significant effort has gone into researching and referencing this work – though
references were missing from the excerpt. Given the inherently complex nature of
disease prevention, also the sheer volume of statistical analyses, any thesis on
immunisation is almost certain to be a minefield of argument and counter-argument.
Too, proclaiming that vulnerable children are being harmed – by those charged with
protecting them - is sure to evoke strong emotion.

It is an easy matter to refute this article, dispute the interpretation of data, and generally
discredit its (arguably unqualified) author. It cannot claim to be a balanced analysis of
the pro and anti-vaccination debate - benefits versus risks. Nevertheless, the article
raises a number of valid questions that health officials have failed to satisfactorily
answer, or chosen to ignore.

http://assets.optomus.com/documents/...Evaluation.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Histrionics run in the family obviously. A big, theatrical gesture like that is pretty standard for such melodramatic people

Not normal for the average person because most people will never be in his situation, or come close to it. I'm amazed at your audacity. How you can judge his actions when you didn't know him, or the reason for his actions? You did not walk in his shoes. You are just as biased as everyone else.

[LadyShea]

Miller has no relevant experience or training, and has a vested interest in fear-mongering to support his book sales, so I don't care what he thinks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The last 3 articles you posted trying to refute my points were by these two men, so those are the sources I am investigating for credibility.

You aren't posting papers and articles by credible people. If you do, and they pass even a simple test of "do they have expertise in this area", then I will pay more attention. As it is I don't care what a computer scientist has to say about epidemiology.

I do not like when you say that these people aren't credible. How do you know how they do their research? Did you read their articles? What do you know about them other than they don't meet your standards? I don't care if you pay attention. You are very biased and that's all there is to it. I've given you articles by other people who have disputed the scientific data. You respond with: "Why can't they do their own studies?" Who cares where the studies come from, as long as they are accurate. If they are not accurate, then they are fair game for criticism. Anyone is entitled to refute unreliable sources, including anti-vaxers. Both can play this game.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Miller has no relevant experience or training, and has a vested interest in fear-mongering to support his book sales, so I don't care what he thinks.

You are such a snit. Turn your nose up if you want to. To come to the conclusion that this is all he is about, is sickening. I have been told the same thing, and it's the farthest thing from the truth.

[peacegirl]

Here is a study out of New Zealand that compares vaccinated children and unvaccinated children in terms of frequency of illness.

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images...s1992study.pdf

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not normal for the average person because most people will never be in his situation, or come close to it. Since you can't win by proving him wrong, you are now using another underhanded tactic. I'm amazed at your audacity. How you can judge his actions when you didn't know him, or the reason for his actions? And you think you are an objective thinking person? You are far from it LadyShea. You are just as biased as the rest of them.

You have told us how he burned his first set of books about a dozen times, as if this proves something good or noble about him. It's a histrionic thing to do, a big dramatic display of feelings, and I stated so. How is that underhanded? How is it unobjective? I can judge his actions because he took them and you told us about them. You seemed to be inviting a judgment of it...only you expected positive judgments.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have told us how he burned his first set of books about a dozen times, as if this proves something positive about him. It's a histrionic thing to do, a big dramatic display of feelings, and I stated so. How is that underhanded?

First of all, you are exaggerating how many times I said this. Is your motive pure, or is it to make me appear histrionic? The only reason I brought this up was to show that he made mistakes just like every other human being, but in the end he succeeded.

[peacegirl]

Although this video is not related to vaccines per se, it is a history of how the AMA came into existence, and how it was corrupt from the very beginning.

Origins of Medical Industry Corruption - YouTube

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a snit LadyShea. Turn your nose up if you want to. That's an easy cop-out. To come to the conclusion that this is all he is about, is sickening. I have been told the same thing, and it's the farthest thing from the truth.

It's not a cop-out. The guy has a Bachelor's in psychology...not immunology or epidemiology or toxicology or any relevant medical science field, and makes his entire living as an author and speaker exclusively about the dangers of vaccines.

You are free to give a shit what he says all you want, but I don't personally care what he thinks because he is not particularly credible.

[peacegirl]

When you see how the public's mind is controlled and they don't even know it, it's really scary.

The Rockefellers, The FDA & The Cancer Industry - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

If a person is not on his deathbed, and he doesn't want a transfusion because of potential risks, he has the right to reject this therapy. What's so difficult?

Not the issue. The child whose parent is making the decision runs a greater risk if we do not give the transfusion. You say it is the parents right to make the child run that risk, because we do not understand all the potential risks of the transfusion.

If you are bleeding out from a gunshot wound, and have a few minutes to live, the alternative is not a risk, it's death.

I notice you require extreme examples to make your point of view seem reasonable. But if you are undergoing an operation, then refusing a transfusion is by no means a death sentence... most of the time. People have been performing them without for centuries. It increases the risk, of course.

True, they try to reduce that risk as much as possible, but it's not risk free especially when transfusions often contain not just one person's blood, but many.

And by your reasoning, since we do not know the risk and cannot guarantee it is 100% risk free, parents have a right to demand transfusions are not used, even if this increases the risk of their kid dying. We wouldn't want to force them to use an unnatural, potentially dangerous transfusion now would we? Because they are always such super-advocates, bless their hearts.

Most parents would do whatever it takes to make sure their child survives, and if the child needed a transfusion, they would opt for it in a heartbeat. It all boils down to the situation they are confronted with.

Beside the point entirely as usual.

You still hold it is such a parents right to refuse a child a transfusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a cop-out. The guy has a Bachelor's in psychology...not immunology or epidemiology or toxicology or any relevant medical science field, and makes his entire living as an author and speaker exclusively about the dangers of vaccines.

You are free to give a shit what he says all you want, but I don't personally care what he thinks because he is not particularly credible.

I gave you a different study to look at, so that you wouldn't be concentrating on these two men. Did you look at it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not the issue. The child whose parent is making the decision runs a greater risk if we do not give the transfusion. You say it is the parents right to make the child run that risk, because we do not understand all the potential risks of the transfusion.

I notice you require extreme examples to make your point of view seem reasonable. But if you are undergoing an operation, then refusing a transfusion is by no means a death sentence... most of the time. People have been performing them without for centuries. It increases the risk, of course.

And by your reasoning, since we do not know the risk and cannot guarantee it is 100% risk free, parents have a right to demand transfusions are not used, even if this increases the risk of their kid dying. We wouldn't want to force them to use an unnatural, potentially dangerous transfusion now would we? Because they are always such super-advocates, bless their hearts.

Beside the point entirely as usual.

You still hold it is such a parents right to refuse a child a transfusion.

I answered this awhile ago. Parents do have that right, but in this world some religious sects demand that there be no medical intervention, and parents may be extremely torn in a situation where a child needs blood. In due time, these superstitions will go by the wayside.

[LadyShea]

I didn't exaggerate at all

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you not see the problem here? You are putting these people like Socrates on a huge pedestal. He was a person, and he made mistakes. So did my father, and he corrected them as he went along. He burned his first set of books for that very reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't just make something up. I gave an answer that I thought worked but after thinking it over I thought there was a better explanation. My father burned his first set of books because he wasn't satisfied, but he knew he was on the right track. It took him many more years to clarify what he was onto in his own mind before he could put it down on paper for others to comprehend. Does that mean he was wrong just because he didn't get it right the first time around? Nooooo.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, that's a ridiculous question. We're all wrong at times in our life. That's why we learn from past mistakes, even when those mistakes are minor. I don't have to list things he was wrong about, so that you can somehow twist this and say that if he was wrong about these things he is fallible and could be wrong about this discovery. He knew he was on the right track, but he knew the transcription to paper was not clear enough. That's why he burned his first set of books. Only when he was 100% satisfied that he was able to clarify the concepts in such a way that others could comprehend, did he print his first hard copy, and even after that he kept revising the book 6 more times in order to make it easier to understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point is he did not have Nageli's blessings which could have gotten him the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. It took 50 years after his death for someone to recognize that he did, in fact, make a discovery. And Lessans did not just come out and say, "I made a discovery." Have you conveniently forgotten that he burned his first set of books because wasn't satisfied. It took him years to comprehend the magnitude of what he had discovered and to put it down on paper in a way that others would understand. You're completely out of line LadyShea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was a human being. He made mistakes, but not when it comes to these discoveries. He worked on this for over 30 years. That in itself doesn't mean he was necessarily right, but in this amount of time he would have noticed an error in his observations if he was wrong. He wouldn't have hesitated to admit it. Why do you think he shared with people that he burned his first set of books. He wasn't satisfied with his explanation and he wasn't clear in his own mind, but he was onto something BIG.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it. At the time he burned his books, he probably felt that he hadn't written it clearly enough. It was his first attempt and he wasn't satisfied. I remember seeing him burning his books and because I was so young, I didn't understand why he was doing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seebs, I'm coming from a completely different vantage point and I see the dilemma. It has more to do with suspicion and disbelief than anything Lessans had to say. Bottom line: I don't think Lessans was wrong. He was wrong about many things and he had no problem admitting his mistakes, but that does not mean he was wrong about this discovery. I also said that he was so unhappy with his first set of books that he burned them in the fireplace. Why? He knew he was wrong in the way he was going about explaining this law because he, himself, was not clear. It was called "The Discovery of 1961". I found one book from that time period, and I'm saving it to show what he went through once this discovery gets recognized.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you think Lessans thought he couldn't make a mistake? Of course he made mistakes. He burned his first set of books. And you think these discoveries came out of his hat? He read philosophy and literature for years and years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are difficult relations, which is why it's becoming almost impossible to get you all to understand them in a forum venue. Believe me, he was a deep thinker and spent most of his adult life analyzing and reanalyzing what he had discovered. He was just as shocked as anyone else that behind the door of determinism there was a huge storehouse of untapped knowledge. He burned up his first set of books (there is one left), because he wasn't satisfied but continued on until he was able to express these difficult concepts in a way others could comprehend.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They knew less than he did. That would be like asking a chimpanzee to help me with my math homework. I'm being serious. Imagine for a moment someone with a genuine discovery asking a professor for help when the professor himself has no understanding of the subject matter. He didn't need help. He knew what he had. It took him years to come to these findings. He burned his first set of books because he wasn't happy. What if he went to a professor and said that he discovered (hypothetically people) that two plus two equals four, and his professor claimed that it was five. Is he supposed to listen to the professor because he went to college, or trust himself because he sees the relations?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It took him years to put this discovery into words. Do you think it was an easy task? He burned his first set of printed books (thousands) in the fireplace (I remember vividly) because he wasn't satisfied. He had studied and read the ideas of many philosophers who had come before him, and that is what allowed him to come up with his discovery. He didn't make this discovery without the help of others. Where in the world did you get the idea that he said, 'Here accept it or you're too dumb to understand it?'

[peacegirl]

You're going back years.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't exaggerate at all

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're going back years LadyShea. It's easy to collect responses of a like nature in all that time. Is it me who's exaggerating, or is it you?

I said you told us about a dozen times how he burned his books, you said I exaggerated the number, I demonstrated I had not. And the first 6 listed are from this year.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, you are exaggerating how many times I said this. Is your motive pure, or is it to make me appear histrionic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said you told us about a dozen times how he burned his books, you said I exaggerated the number, I demonstrated I had not. And the first 6 listed are from this year.

Mentioning it eleven times in 1,095 days (or approx. 3 years) is not a lot, especially when it was mentioned for a reason. I don't even remember who Seebs was, it was that long ago. Obviously, if I mentioned it this year it was because I was responding to the fact that people were saying that I believed he never made mistakes.

[LadyShea]

I still didn't exaggerate as you accused. And, it is still a histrionic thing to do.

[peacegirl]

Here's another article on the chicken pox vaccine and shingles.

Chickenpox (Varicella) Vaccine: This Is Why a Shingles Epidemic Is Bolting Straight at the U.S.
November 02, 2010 | 346,157 views

Diane Murphy, MD, is the Director of the FDA's Office of Pediatric Therapeutics (OPT). The mission of OPT is to enforce a Congressional mandate that assures access for children to innovative, safe, and effective medical products.

Historically, many medical products have not been tested for use in children, leading to an increase in adverse events and the use of ineffective products.

Murphy notes that young children and neonates require the development of a new directional endpoint that can better help us to not treat children with our best guess, but with knowledge.



Dr. Mercola's Comments:

It's now been fifteen years since Merck's chickenpox (varicella) vaccine was approved for market.

What had always been regarded as a relatively benign childhood illness was suddenly reinvented in the 1990s as a life-threatening disease for which children must get vaccinated or face dire health consequences.

But wait—Merck to the rescue!

As is true with many new and potentially unnecessary medical interventions used on a widespread basis, there are often unintended consequences. The chickenpox (varicella) vaccine is a perfect example.

By trying to prevent all children from experiencing chickenpox naturally, this policy may have actually created a NEW epidemic—not in children but in adults, especially elderly adults.

Vaccinating children for chickenpox may very well be causing a shingles epidemic.

Chickenpox—Another False Epidemic

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-epidemic.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I still didn't exaggerate as you accused. And, it is still a histrionic thing to do.

Okay, so you didn't exaggerate. You won this round. Does this prove anything other than you are a competitive person who wants to win at all costs? You may win on trivia, but you do not win on the more important points.