A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since I've been here I have done a lot of research. I cannot even begin to tell you how incomplete these studies are, and the long term problems of providing only vaccine induced immunity in relatively mild diseases. I'll have to come back later to discuss it. If people are not going to look at the videos and studies that I provide (which are more than anecdotal accounts, although there's nothing wrong with this either since parents are amazing investigators when it comes to their children), this will be another lop-sided discussion, which won't do us any good.

Some asshole with a blog and a YouTube channel is "research", but a paper published in Science is "incomplete."

Unless you know of a specific health reason which prevents you, the correct answer to, "Should I vaccinate my child?" is "Yes."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Some asshole with a blog and a YouTube channel is "research", but a paper published in Science is "incomplete."

These studies are incomplete because they only test for one variable, not a combination which can cause synergistic toxicity. Pleeasee stop being so biased as to only think these published papers are conclusive. They are far from it. Did you watch the video I posted?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Unless you know of a specific health reason which prevents you, the correct answer to, "Should I vaccinate my child?" is "Yes."

No it is not that simple. Maybe it is the right choice for you, but that doesn't make it right for me. And please don't talk about the greater good because this reasoning is completely flawed.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not that simple. Maybe it is the right choice for you, but that doesn't make it right for me. And please don't talk about the greater good because this reasoning is completely flawed.

Yes, it is exactly that simple, unless you have a known health problem. The risk of harm from a vaccine is significantly less than the risk of harm from contracting the disease the vaccine prevents.

This is particularly true for measles, one of the most infectious of all human diseases. Out of 110 cases in California from the Disney outbreak, 17 (15%) were known to be hospitalized. The most common severe side effect of the MMR vaccine is high fever, which is 1/3000 or 0.03%, and I don't have hospitalization rates for that.

So: Measles - 15% or more chance of hospitalization, and hospitalization rate is higher for children under 5; MMR vaccine - 0.03% chance of a reaction.

Of all the risks my children might be exposed to, the MMR vaccine is very low on my list.

For any individual, the risk of harm from vaccines is significantly less than the risk of harm of contracting the disease.

We haven't even started on cost. It's more expensive to contract measles than to get a vaccination. Not just hospitalization, but sick time costs the infected and family, because it's more likely to be children that are hospitalized.

...and while you're entirely wrong about the benefits for the greater good, we don't even need that argument to say that the correct answer is always, "You should vaccinate your child."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These studies are incomplete because they only test for one variable, not a combination which can cause synergistic toxicity. Pleeasee stop being so biased as to only think these published papers are conclusive. They are far from it. Did you watch the video I posted?

Anyone with a smartphone can make a post a video, and those videos are mostly opinion, which is why nobody wants to watch them.

What actual verified/verifiable data is presented in the video? Can you note the referenced data, jot it down, then post it so we can look it up to find the verification?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize I can do all those things, and I'm doing some of them. I am trying to learn how to optimize twitter. I still hope to get objective reviewers who can give this man a decent review, even if they aren't sure that his observations are accurate. I need people who can present an overview without bias.

Book reviews are not unbiased overviews nor are book reviews summaries of the content. Reviews are opinions about the content, which are biased by definition.

I never said my free speech is being curtailed, nor did I say that I demanded an audience. I only said that the wildwest type of anything goes does not produce the kind of conversation that is productive.

Not productive in your opinion.

In fact, it can be quite the opposite of the desired outcome of a discussion forum.

Your personal desired outcome which may or may not be shared by others.

I have found that a moderated forum where ideas have to be pretty much in line with the administrator is worse, so I'm back here as the lesser of two evils.

I read your threads at CFI, you weren't moderated based on your ideas, but on the lack of quality in your posting and refutations.

If there were other forums that had a middle ground, I would want to go there.

CFI is totally middle ground moderation wise...you just suck at responding to criticism and presenting valid evidence, as well as you seem incapable of understanding copyright and fair use, as we proved here long ago..

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Book reviews are not unbiased overviews nor are book reviews summaries of the content. Reviews are opinions about the content, which are biased by definition.

I just want the book to be carefully studied (not just given a onceover) and then given a fair analysis. A person can give their opinion but it should be based on the text and what it is expressing. Trashing the book by giving a horrible review like this guy Greene did was uncalled for because he never read it. He misrepresented what was in the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your free speech is not being curtailed in any way, shape, or form. You are not entitled to an audience, especially not one that follows the rules you personally wish for.

I never said my free speech is being curtailed, nor did I say that I demanded an audience. I only said that the wildwest type of anything goes does not produce the kind of conversation that is productive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not productive in your opinion.

In fact, it can be quite the opposite of the desired outcome of a discussion forum.

Originally Posted by LadyShea;1230354[I

Your personal[/I] desired outcome which may or may not be shared by others.

I don't consider name calling and turning an important work into a spoof just for the sport of it a productive discussion.

I have found that a moderated forum where ideas have to be pretty much in line with the administrator is worse, so I'm back here as the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read your threads at CFI, you weren't moderated based on your ideas, but on the lack of quality in your posting and refutations.

There was no lack of quality. The standard of evaluation to determine the validity of this unprecedented knowledge has to be of top quality. If you think there was lack of quality, so be it. It could be that you need confirmation from higher uppers in rank. If they gave this work their stamp of approval, then you would change your tune, which shows me that it's not necessarily about what is being said but rather who says it. I am not depending on you for approval. I said many times that based on his observations, more empirical studies need to be done to determine whether he was right or not. Determining the truth in this thread is not possible. The only thing I hoped for was to get some valid reviews.

If there were other forums that had a middle ground, I would want to go there.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

FI is totally middle ground moderation wise...you just suck at responding to criticism and presenting valid evidence.

No it is not middle ground in my opinion. At least not from what I have experienced. It was a tomato throwing nay-saying anti-Lessans free for all, and the loudest and the most mean-spirited ran the show. People follow the ones that are most vocal whether they have something of value to say or not. Their opinion takes precedence. That's how I see it, even though you see it differently. Very few participated. People stay away because they know the verbal abuse (and I do call it abuse) that can occur if they are targeted.

[LadyShea]

LOL. Still the whiny victim. Nothing is ever your fault or responsibility, it's always about people being big scary meanies

[Angakuk]

The good times are back

Oh peacegirl, how I have missed you.

[LadyShea]

It could be that you need confirmation from higher uppers in rank.

What does that even mean? I don't have, nor do I need, "higher uppers in rank" to confirm that you suck at explaining and defending this book. LOL.

What you need to offer are useful explanations, rational answers, and reasonable responses to valid criticisms and questions, but you seem entirely incapable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. Still the whiny victim. Nothing is ever your fault or responsibility, it's always about people being big scary meanies

That's not true at all. All you have done and continue to do is pick a label of what you think I am, and that is suppose to put the blame on me and excuse everything and anything anyone says, even if it's misguided or just plain wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? I don't have, nor do I need, "higher uppers in rank" to confirm that you suck at explaining and defending this book. LOL.

What you need to offer are useful explanations, rational answers, and reasonable responses to valid criticisms and questions, but you seem entirely incapable.

Incapable according to whom? YOU? I have offered useful explanations and reasonable responses but the topics that are being discussed are difficult at best. People get polarized, especially when it comes to determinism. Have you done your part? Have you read the book in its entirety in the way Lessans implored? Have you stopped cherry picking parts that make the book look ridiculous, just like the author of Breaking the Illusion of Free Will, expressed? There is a very real risk that no one in these forums will take a chance on this work because of what was falsely said about it. I cannot deal with another forum because they're all alike in how they respond. It's like they all come out of the same exact mold. I guess this is standard since they have all been humanism sites. I have met no individuals that take it slow, don't jump to conclusions, and have a desire to dig deeper into these findings before spouting off that there is nothing to this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The good times are back

Oh peacegirl, how I have missed you.

Hi Anagakuk, how are you? Hope all is well in your world. Sorry to say that the good times are not back. If any of these muskateers start up again, I'm not hanging around. I'm not a masochist. Besides, nothing is going to come of this thread, and my time is limited.

[peacegirl]

WAKE UP FROM YOUR SLUMBER

Academic Oligarchy: Majority of Science Publishing is Controlled by Just Six Companies – Wake Up From Your Slumber !

[LadyShea]

Skepticism has been the common factor at the forums you have frequented, not humanism.

If you can't bring the hard evidence you won't hang well with skeptics...as we have told you many times. Did you ever look for forums for followers of Wayne Dyer ands suchlike?

[LadyShea]

Explain how falling in love with someone's sex organs because they don't look like Elizabeth Taylor isn't objectifying and dehumanizing.

Explain how photoreceptors in the eyes work in your efferent vision model

Explain why homosexual relationships will "naturally decline" in a no blame environment

Explain exactly what the germinal substance is, including its properties and chemical composition

Explain how satisfaction can be measured and compared

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you ever look for forums for followers of Wayne Dyer ands suchlike?

Or how about somewhere around that "natural health" crap where all the anti-vaxxers and assorted kooks are? The page linked above has its "everything is controlled by six companies" stuff from "naturalnews.com" where the top article is (no shit) "FDA-approved drug turns ordinary people into obedient zombies!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain how falling in love with someone's sex organs because they don't look like Elizabeth Taylor isn't objectifying and dehumanizing.

Explain how photoreceptors in the eyes work in your efferent vision model

Explain why homosexual relationships will "naturally decline" in a no blame environment

Explain exactly what the germinal substance is, including its properties and chemical composition

Explain how satisfaction can be measured and compared

Your snobbery has remained unchanged. Unbelievable how small your little mind is LadyShea. You take something out of context because you don't understand it, and you think you clocked the falsity of this major discovery. You are the epitome of why I can't use forums like this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Or how about somewhere around that "natural health" crap where all the anti-vaxxers and assorted kooks are? The page linked above has its "everything is controlled by six companies" stuff from "naturalnews.com" where the top article is (no shit) "FDA-approved drug turns ordinary people into obedient zombies!"

No But, you can't win doing this anymore. There is too much evidence coming forward that is showing the serious risks of the vaccine schedule. Calling people names doesn't work anymore. Do you not get that, or is it too hard to face? And guess what, natural news is starting an entirely new search engine that bypasses companies that have agendas like the CDC and the FDA in cahoots with Big Pharma. I know you will deny any truth to anything that goes against the mainstream, which is why I can't waste my time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Skepticism has been the common factor at the forums you have frequented, not humanism.

If you can't bring the hard evidence you won't hang well with skeptics...as we have told you many times. Did you ever look for forums for followers of Wayne Dyer ands suchlike?

There is nothing wrong with skepticism. That was Lessans mantra, but when it's taken too far it actually prevents any further investigation. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Never mind. You are just repeating the same shit all over again. I can't get in touch with any of these famous people. Do you think I'd come back to this thread if I could find a better way?

[LadyShea]

Surely the famous people have followings, and those people congregate to discuss somewhere online.

[LadyShea]

Rtf c

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your snobbery has remained unchanged. Unbelievable how small your little mind is LadyShea. You take something out of context because you don't understand it, and you think you clocked the falsity of this major discovery. You are the epitome of why I can't use forums like this.

Thanks for proving my point....yet again

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Surely the famous people have followings, and those people congregate to discuss somewhere online.

Maybe they have facebook pages, I don't know, but the chances of my being able to contact these people is virtually nil. Usually you have to contact their agent, and hope that your message gets to them. Trust me, this is not an easy task.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Rtf c

Thanks for proving my point....yet again

It's you that proved my point. You post a couple of sentences and expect me to jump through hoops when you know the book is over 600 pages. Be honest LadyShea, do you really think this is fair, or are you doing this, once again, so people will be turned off right from the start?

[LadyShea]

Be honest LadyShea, do you really think this is fair, or are you doing this, once again, so people will be turned off right from the start?

What "start"? Your leaving for a while doesnt give you a fresh start. The unanswered questions are still there.

Every one of those points was left with you weaseling rather than rational and reasonable responses, certainly you offered no useful explanations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "start"? Your leaving for a while doesnt give you a fresh start. The unanswered questions are still there.

Every one of those points was left with you weaseling rather than rational and reasonable responses, certainly you offered no useful explanations.

You keep accusing me of weaseling, which I'm not doing. I have responded adequately to questions regarding determinism. The rest of the book was just an extension of how this knowledge, when applied, can change our world for the better. I will not get into your other questions because they cannot be explained in a thread and some of your questions show me that you misunderstood a lot of what he wrote. His third discovery is very deep, and you are using your ability to grasp these relations as proof or denial of this man's work. It would be like questioning Einstein and if you don't understand his explanation, he must be wrong. Believe me, if someone that you looked up to recognized the veracity of these principles, you would have a completely different attitude. You aren't questioning me. You are challenging me with an air of disrespect.