So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I don't trust chemicals over nature, especially when there's absolutely no proof that a healthy immune system cannot do the job that nature intended.
You realize, don't you, that "chemicals" and "nature" are about as far from mutual exclusivity as you can get absent total synonymy.
Technically you're right.
Actually as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Also, nature doesn't have intentions.
I didn't think you would take that comment literally.
Ah, well, that makes all the difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's not true because the evidence does not conclude that vaccines are safe for all children. There are other ways to build our children's immune systems. The wait and see approach is the smart approach to take. It warrants being cautious especially when it comes to injecting something into a child that could inadvertently hurt him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
By those standards, we should stop transporting children in motor vehicles forthwith. After all, we're quite sure that vehicular transport will result in serious injury and death for some children, and there are other ways to get the little tykes from Point A to Point B. Surely we should be cautious before strapping a child into a conveyance that could inadvertently hurt him.
It's not that easy to get little tykes from Point A to Point B, especially if grandma lives in the next town, so we do the next best thing which is to transport them using car seats and seat belts.
But that's not the test. According to you, the standard is whether the activity in question is completely safe for all children. The dangers associated with vehicular transportation of children aren't potential; they're actual. Thus, transporting children by vehicle is too hazardous and fails the test.
And what's all this "not that easy" nonsense? Being a parent or grandparent is hard work. Why should parents' or grandparents' convenience trump child safety? Mom should strap the little ankle biters to her back and hoof it to grandma's house along nice, safe paths just like our Forefathers did! If it was good enough for the Founders, it's goddamn jolly well good enough for us!
Better yet, granny should turn off the TV, drag her fat, bon-bon eating ass off the couch and go visit the grandkids at their house. Since when is some dipshit Greatest Generationer's comfort more important than CHILD SAFETY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The rare occasion that a child could get hurt by a seatbelt cannot compare to the potential danger of vaccines. The verdict is still out on just how dangerous.
Damn straight they're not comparable! As noted above, the dangers of transporting children by vehicle are actual, while this vaccine stuff is merely potential. Accordingly, the former practice is substantially worse!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Surely we should be cautious before strapping a child into a conveyance that could inadvertently hurt him.
You are absolutely right, we should just sit quaking in the backs of our caves waiting to die. Once we are all dead nothing worse will happen to us and nothing will be able to hurt us. The cautious way is the best way.
That's that spirit, doc!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
I must be a really terrible grandparent, this evening I took my grandson to his soccer practice, (and discounting the harm that could happen there) we all (including my grandaughter) rode in my pickup truck (only a front seat). The horrible possible consequences that could have befallen us have made my resolve that I shall never do anything so foolhardy again. Soccer be damned.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I may have weaseled out of posts where I was expected to come up with an answer, so I did even though I wasn't sure of the answer.
That is not weaseling. That is just making shit up. The weaseling came into play when you got called on the shit you made up and avoided answering questions so as to not have to admit that you were just making up shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...I feel pressured in here as a representative of my father to answer all questions and to answer them all correctly because I know how people are judging me, and by association, his knowledge.
So, when you don't actually know the correct answer you just go ahead and make something up. How does that help you to answer the questions correctly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I believe that people have judged him harshly as a result of the belief that his knowledge did not come from physics per se...
Then you are acting on the basis of a false belief. If Lessans has been judged harshly it has not been because his knowledge did not come from physics, but because his "knowledge" was just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The problem with the scientific method is that the conclusions drawn are often unreliable.
What method do you consider more reliable?
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
The quotes paragraph, of course. Do you still not know how this works?
Quote:
Why is confidence in nature a laughing matter?
Please define "nature", and you will see. It is a semi-religious term full of unexamined presuppositions when you use it the way you use it.
Quote:
From what I've read the BBB is not fully developed in newborns. This is still a controversial issue, as well as how well an infant's liver can handle these chemicals.
Beside the point. I am not arguing anything about mercury and blood brain barriers. I am merely stating that you were unable to spot the blunder, and that this made you repeat complete falsehoods, believing it was valid information.
Quote:
There is cause to believe that these metals (including thimerosal) could be contributing factors to many childhood illnesses.
Again, that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about, and perhaps that is an illustration of my point. My point is that misinformation spreads more easily than good information, because it takes a basic level of competency to spot that something is incorrect, and why. This gets worse when we are dealing with rather technical bio-medical information.
Quote:
I think it's selfish of the vaccine manufacturers, the pharmaceutical companies, the doctors, and the politicians to be secretive about the potential risks of vaccines for the sake of profit.
Once again beside the point. I was referring to your approach: you would rather inflict the risk of not being vaccinated on your children than the risk of taking a vaccine, because of an emotional bias, regardless of any factual information.
Quote:
Please refresh my memory. What examples are you talking about?
- Infants do not have a blood-brain barrier
- Infants do not produce bile
- In-breeding causes mutations
Obviously.
Given that you clearly show a profound ignorance about the relevant field, do you feel competent to judge the information?
Quote:
I don't trust chemicals over nature, especially when there's absolutely no proof that a healthy immune system cannot do the job that nature intended.
Well there you have it: an emotional bias based on a semi-religious belief which you hold to be self-evident.
And incidentally, the "natural" way for nature to deal with these diseases is to have a massive infant mortality rate. It gets so bad that lots of cultures do not even name their children until they are a year or more of age.
Since you like anecdotes, I will tell you one from my own family tree: in the 1800's, church records show child after child being born into the different families that have my last name, and dying again before they reach 2. In several cases, these people got so used to this that they did not bother to change the name. 6 boys called Gerard (It stood out: Gerard is my dad's name) are born into the same family in a row in one case. 1 of them made it past the age of 6.
So I do think there is quite a lot of evidence that a "Healthy immune system" does not in fact protect you from the diseases we vaccinate against, at least not to the levels that a modern person would find acceptable.
Quote:
That's not true because the evidence does not conclude that vaccines are safe for all children. There are other ways to build our children's immune systems. The wait and see approach is the smart approach to take. It warrants being cautious especially when it comes to injecting something into a child that could inadvertently hurt him.
If you use your type of reasoning, you would not give someone an antibiotic when they have pneumonia because it could harm them, even though without the antibiotic, the chances of survival are lower than with.
Quote:
My standard for determining what is true is based on science, and so far the science isn't looking good.
That is a falsehood: in fact you have only just finished saying that you in fact do not trust science at all:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
The problem with the scientific method is that the conclusions drawn are often unreliable.
So where you lying, or are you not able to remember what your standard for determining truth is for more than, say, an afternoon? Or is it simply that you do not like scientific results that go against what you already believe, (this is the bad science that has the unreliable conclusions) while still trying to claim the authority of science for any result that you DO like (this is the good science that is your standard for determining what is true)?
Does it bother you that your approach is demonstrably hypocritical? That you just cherry-pick results to suit your bias, and dismiss results that do not favor your bias, that you demonstrably do not understand half of it anyway, and call the resulting opinion a rational conclusion?
But I am very interested in what you think "natural" means, and why you prefer it to "chemicals" or things that are "unnatural".
Last edited by Vivisectus; 10-10-2013 at 09:31 AM.
And what's all this "not that easy" nonsense? Being a parent or grandparent is hard work. Why should parents' or grandparents' convenience trump child safety? Mom should strap the little ankle biters to her back and hoof it to grandma's house along nice, safe paths just like our Forefathers did! If it was good enough for the Founders, it's goddamn jolly well good enough for us!
And let us not forget that this is way more natural, and therefor better!
What is this "natural" that keeps popping up? How is it best defined? It seems we should prefer "natural" things, but why?
I have yet to see anyone define it clearly. It strikes me as one of those almost religious presuppositions that people just assume is self-evident, and never really examine what they really mean when they talk about it.
Can the proponents of all things "natural" perhaps explain it to me?
So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I didn't say that LadyShea. First of all, this discussion is not just about the link to autism. It is a link to other disabling conditions as well. Secondly, you are not taking into consideration the advances that have been made in Western countries that have eliminated a serious risk of death from these illnesses. You are not being honest here.
I didn't say you do. I'm asking you about the many instances in which you have weaseled. Why do it? Wouldn't you rather be the kind of person who doesn't weasel when faced with a difficult question? Wouldn't you rather be honest and direct at all times? Wouldn't that be better?
No, because people will take my lack of expertise in a particular area and use it to conclude that Lessans' claims are false, which is untrue. It's false reasoning on their part. It's just like the prosecutor trying to corner the defendant so that it looks as if there is no other explanation possible.
So you think under those circumstances, dishonestly evading questions and weaseling is actually a better tactic than being direct and honest? Let me ask you this: Did it work? Were people actually any less critical of Lessans and his claims when you weaseled out of answering awkward questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Did that really justify your weaseling? Or do you agree that there were better things you could have done? Where you had guessed at an answer and come up with something wrong, wouldn't it have been better to own up to the mistake and either try again or honestly admit that you don't know the answer?
Of course, and that's what I normally do, but I feel pressured in here as a representative of my father to answer all questions and to answer them all correctly because I know how people are judging me, and by association, his knowledge. It's not fair.
What has actually happened in those cases where you honestly admitted to not knowing something instead evading and weaseling? Has the outcome been all that terrible? Has it been any worse than when you've evaded and weaseled out of answering? Has anyone ever criticized you or your father on the grounds that you've admitted to not knowing an answer to something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If your lack of expertise in an area doesn't amount to a good reason to discredit the book, couldn't you have just said so whilst being honest and direct about your lack of knowledge? Wouldn't that have reflected better upon both you and Lessans than deliberately weaseling and being evasive?
Maybe, but I didn't believe that and I still don't. I believe that people have judged him harshly as a result of the belief that his knowledge did not come from physics per se, and the fact that I don't know all of the answers to certain physics questions, gives people the wrong impression regarding his capabilities and how his findings came about. What can I say? People refuse to take this knowledge seriously. It's a sad state of affairs.
You didn't believe and still don't believe what? What impression do you think you give when you evade and weasel? Do you think it is a better or worse impression than when you honestly admit to not knowing something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And you seem to think that your weaseling days are all in the distant efferent past. What about your more recent weaseling? For instance, when LadyShea asks a direct Yes or No question about whether autism rates have or have not decreased, why is it that you still weasel instead of answering?
I was not weaseling. I could not give a yes or no answer because the Danish study that concluded autism rates have gone up since thermiosal was removed has been shown to be flawed.
How did that prevent you from directly answering the question? Do you not realize that 'I don't know' would have been a better response than simply ignoring and evading the question?
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Are you kidding me? I don't have to account to prove my case. Who do you think you are LadyShea, god incarnate? I'm being serious; I just don't get your attitude at all. What gives you the right to conclude that the studies you used are correct and other studies go by the wayside? Please explain. As far as I'm concerned you are showing your bias so that you can feel justified in your decisions to give your child a flu vaccine. Show me otherwise, but don't attack me on false allegations.
This brutal asking someone to clearly state their opinion on a subject has to stop, Lady Shea! Good god, what is going to satisfy Her Inquisitorial Highness here? An answer or something?
That was pretty brutal and unnecessary. Sorry LadyShea. I am just frustrated. Let me soften my words a bit.
I don't get your attitude at all. Why are you so enamored by one study that shows cutting off oxygen to an infant from cutting the cord too soon makes sense and other studies which correlate vaccines to autism go by the wayside?
I don't trust chemicals over nature, especially when there's absolutely no proof that a healthy immune system cannot do the job that nature intended.
You realize, don't you, that "chemicals" and "nature" are about as far from mutual exclusivity as you can get absent total synonymy.
Technically you're right.
Actually as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Also, nature doesn't have intentions.
I didn't think you would take that comment literally.
Ah, well, that makes all the difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's not true because the evidence does not conclude that vaccines are safe for all children. There are other ways to build our children's immune systems. The wait and see approach is the smart approach to take. It warrants being cautious especially when it comes to injecting something into a child that could inadvertently hurt him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
By those standards, we should stop transporting children in motor vehicles forthwith. After all, we're quite sure that vehicular transport will result in serious injury and death for some children, and there are other ways to get the little tykes from Point A to Point B. Surely we should be cautious before strapping a child into a conveyance that could inadvertently hurt him.
It's not that easy to get little tykes from Point A to Point B, especially if grandma lives in the next town, so we do the next best thing which is to transport them using car seats and seat belts.
But that's not the test. According to you, the standard is whether the activity in question is completely safe for all children. The dangers associated with vehicular transportation of children aren't potential; they're actual. Thus, transporting children by vehicle is too hazardous and fails the test.
But we do whatever we can to protect our children against the risks. We are always dealing with the benefit/risk ratio. Unfortunately, when it comes to the benefit/risk ratio of vaccines, the pendulum is swinging toward not enough benefit; too many risks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
And what's all this "not that easy" nonsense? Being a parent or grandparent is hard work. Why should parents' or grandparents' convenience trump child safety? Mom should strap the little ankle biters to her back and hoof it to grandma's house along nice, safe paths just like our Forefathers did! If it was good enough for the Founders, it's goddamn jolly well good enough for us!
You're funny, "little ankle biters." Love that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Better yet, granny should turn off the TV, drag her fat, bon-bon eating ass off the couch and go visit the grandkids at their house. Since when is some dipshit Greatest Generationer's comfort more important than CHILD SAFETY!
So let us take grandma out of the equation and replace it with the doctor's office. Doctor's will not come to the house, even if you're dying. You have to call an ambulance which is necessary even though it runs an even greater risk of getting in an accident. Sometimes we have to hedge our bets on what we believe will be the best option in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The rare occasion that a child could get hurt by a seatbelt cannot compare to the potential danger of vaccines. The verdict is still out on just how dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Damn straight they're not comparable! As noted above, the dangers of transporting children by vehicle are actual, while this vaccine stuff is merely potential. Accordingly, the former practice is substantially worse!
Wrong, children who have been hurt by vaccines is not merely potential. It's just as actual as a child getting hurt in a car accident; it's just not as visible at first glance.
So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I didn't say that LadyShea.
Adam asked you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
So, that's approximately 2.4 million lives saved per year, and that's just for measles. Unless the "extent of the damage" is equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year, then that's an easy net win for vaccination and, again, I'm only using the numbers from a single disease.
Are there 2.4 million people out there dying every year that you think you can pin on vaccination?
You responded with an rant titled WHY AUTISM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED WITHIN THE CURRENT MEDICAL PARADIGM
Are you kidding me? I don't have to account to prove my case. Who do you think you are LadyShea, god incarnate? I'm being serious; I just don't get your attitude at all. What gives you the right to conclude that the studies you used are correct and other studies go by the wayside? Please explain. As far as I'm concerned you are showing your bias so that you can feel justified in your decisions to give your child a flu vaccine. Show me otherwise, but don't attack me on false allegations.
This brutal asking someone to clearly state their opinion on a subject has to stop, Lady Shea! Good god, what is going to satisfy Her Inquisitorial Highness here? An answer or something?
That was pretty brutal and unnecessary. Sorry LadyShea. I am just frustrated. Let me soften my words a bit.
I don't get your attitude at all. Why are you so enamored by one study that shows cutting off oxygen to an infant from cutting the cord too soon makes sense and other studies which correlate vaccines to autism go by the wayside?
I am not "enamored" of anything. You are so histrionic I swear!
I've posted different types of information about the blood brain barrier from different sources to try to get something through, because you stubbornly and bewilderingly stood behind the idiot who said infants had NO blood brain barrier and produced NO bile.
You haven't yet offered a single actual experimental study that correlates vaccines to autism, you know. You've posted a lot of article that called the research done by others into question. I ask again, why are the anti-vax scientists sitting on their asses rather than producing their own evidence
I have to ask, why do you have a problem with me posting that paper? Why did my posting it/referring to it once(as opposed to your repeatedly linking to the same articles multiple times) with a very short description amount to my "being enamored by it" in your mind?
That paper did not come from mainstream medicine, but from the anti-vaxxers. It was one of the few that appears to be well written, cites pertinent research, and draws rational, plausible conclusions.
when it comes to the benefit/risk ratio of vaccines, the pendulum is swinging toward not enough benefit; too many risks.
You feel you've demonstrated that? You have been unable to show any statistics at all, and are simply offering vague allusions to "chronic illnesses of unknown origin".
How do you figure which way the pendulum is swinging with so little information?
The benefit is very large:greatly enhanced protection from diseases that used to annually kill millions and now only kill hundreds. The known risks are small: severe immediate reaction, usually due to allergies, which only rarely occur.
So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I didn't say that LadyShea.
Adam asked you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
So, that's approximately 2.4 million lives saved per year, and that's just for measles. Unless the "extent of the damage" is equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year, then that's an easy net win for vaccination and, again, I'm only using the numbers from a single disease.
Are there 2.4 million people out there dying every year that you think you can pin on vaccination?
You responded with an rant titled WHY AUTISM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED WITHIN THE CURRENT MEDICAL PARADIGM
So what were you actually saying then?
I just want to say in my defense that you seem to want to be right at all costs, no matter what the evidence is. Prove me wrong. The current medical paradigm is not working. We may not have all the proof to satisfy you, but we will find it because too many parents have testified that their children have been directly hurt (within an hour) by vaccines. The fact that you depend on studies which are skewed in many ways tells me that you don't care about the testimonies. You only rely on empirical studies, which do not tell the whole story.
Are you kidding me? I don't have to account to prove my case. Who do you think you are LadyShea, god incarnate? I'm being serious; I just don't get your attitude at all. What gives you the right to conclude that the studies you used are correct and other studies go by the wayside? Please explain. As far as I'm concerned you are showing your bias so that you can feel justified in your decisions to give your child a flu vaccine. Show me otherwise, but don't attack me on false allegations.
This brutal asking someone to clearly state their opinion on a subject has to stop, Lady Shea! Good god, what is going to satisfy Her Inquisitorial Highness here? An answer or something?
That was pretty brutal and unnecessary. Sorry LadyShea. I am just frustrated. Let me soften my words a bit.
I don't get your attitude at all. Why are you so enamored by one study that shows cutting off oxygen to an infant from cutting the cord too soon makes sense and other studies which correlate vaccines to autism go by the wayside?
I am not "enamored" of anything. You are so histrionic I swear!
Wrong, let it go because I already said I'm sorry. So stop using that as fodder to add to your false conclusions. You are 100% biased and are now trying to save face. You are working hard to prove that vaccines don't cause autism or any other chronic condition. You are losing the battle especially as more people, both scientists and parents, are coming forward to dispute this lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladyshea
I've posted different types of information about the blood brain barrier from different sources to try to get something through, because you stubbornly and bewilderingly stood behind the idiot who said infants had NO blood brain barrier and produced NO bile.
You cannot win even in a legitimate debate, so why don't you prepare yourself and stop using these negative ad hom attacks on anyone who disagrees with you. You have a few people supporting you, but the wave of the anti-vax movement will swallow you up in no time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You haven't yet offered a single actual experimental study that correlates vaccines to autism, you know. You've posted a lot of article that called the research done by others into question. I ask again, why are the anti-vax scientists sitting on their asses rather than producing their own evidence
You refuse to even look at the articles or the videos. Why is that? I think you're afraid that your proof is not proof at all, and you will be shown up as being wrong, which you cannot handle.
I have to ask, why do you have a problem with me posting that paper? Why did my posting it/referring to it once(as opposed to your repeatedly linking to the same articles multiple times) with a very short description amount to my "being enamored by it" in your mind?
That paper did not come from mainstream medicine, but from the anti-vaxxers. It was one of the few that appears to be well written, cites pertinent research, and draws rational, plausible conclusions.
It doesn't matter where the paper came from or even that I posted it. The problem is that you give more credence to ANYTHING you can find that will take away the responsibility of vaccines directly being responsible for the many ills of our children. You cannot prove that vaccines don't cause this problem, and until we know the truth, one way or the other, you need to be more open minded than you are. You continue to defend science when science happens to be part of Big Pharma and the inaccurate studies that have resulted. I don't know why you are doing this except to protect the medical profession which you have given complete trust to. It's not in the best interest of society that these studies showing a link between vaccines and chronic disorders don't come out, so parents and doctors can make their own conclusions as to what could be actually going on. I admit that I don't know all of the ins and outs of the BBB and the biliary system, but as a mother I would never allow someone to use my child as a guinea pig, because they don't know either.
So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I didn't say that LadyShea.
Adam asked you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
So, that's approximately 2.4 million lives saved per year, and that's just for measles. Unless the "extent of the damage" is equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year, then that's an easy net win for vaccination and, again, I'm only using the numbers from a single disease.
Are there 2.4 million people out there dying every year that you think you can pin on vaccination?
You responded with an rant titled WHY AUTISM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED WITHIN THE CURRENT MEDICAL PARADIGM
So what were you actually saying then?
I just want to say in my defense that you seem to want to be right at all costs, no matter what the evidence is. Prove me wrong. The current medical paradigm is not working. We may not have all the proof to satisfy you, but we will find it because too many parents have testified that their children have been directly hurt (within an hour) by vaccines. The fact that you depend on studies which are skewed in many ways tells me that you don't care about the testimonies. You only rely on empirical studies, which do not tell the whole story.
Weaseling by ad homming me to avoid answering a direct question.
I have to ask, why do you have a problem with me posting that paper? Why did my posting it/referring to it once(as opposed to your repeatedly linking to the same articles multiple times) with a very short description amount to my "being enamored by it" in your mind?
That paper did not come from mainstream medicine, but from the anti-vaxxers. It was one of the few that appears to be well written, cites pertinent research, and draws rational, plausible conclusions.
It doesn't matter where the paper came from or even that I posted it. The problem is that you give more credence to ANYTHING you can find that will take away the responsibility of vaccines directly being responsible for the many ills of our children. You cannot prove that vaccines don't cause this problem, and until we know the truth, one way or the other, you need to be more open minded than you are. You know what I'm saying. You continue to defend Big Pharma and the inaccurate studies. I don't know why you are doing this, but it's not in the best interest of society until we know what is actually going on. I admit that I don't know all of the ins and outs of the BBB and the biliary system, but as a mother I would never allow someone to use my child as a guinea pig, because they don't know either.
I posted it, and you accused me of being "enamored by it" and were all argle bargle for some reason, and now you are once again weaseling. Why don't you take responsibility for your own words?
Bottom line is you keep blaming vaccines for "ills" but have yet to define these ills, have yet to quantify these ills, and have yet to post anything showing a causal mechanism for vaccines to produce these undefined and unquantified ills. You are searching for a cause to a problem that you can't even articulate or demonstrate exists.
That paper, written by anti-vax activists, posited a different causal mechanism for a number of "ills" that they defined, and explored pretty thoroughly, and it was complete with pertinent references to previous scientific studies. It is a lot more credible than anything you've posted thus far, and represents the side of the anti-vaxxers that isn't a bag full of crazy. I don't know that I agree with their conclusions, but at least they offered some actual science to follow up on.
Are you kidding me? I don't have to account to prove my case. Who do you think you are LadyShea, god incarnate? I'm being serious; I just don't get your attitude at all. What gives you the right to conclude that the studies you used are correct and other studies go by the wayside? Please explain. As far as I'm concerned you are showing your bias so that you can feel justified in your decisions to give your child a flu vaccine. Show me otherwise, but don't attack me on false allegations.
This brutal asking someone to clearly state their opinion on a subject has to stop, Lady Shea! Good god, what is going to satisfy Her Inquisitorial Highness here? An answer or something?
That was pretty brutal and unnecessary. Sorry LadyShea. I am just frustrated. Let me soften my words a bit.
I don't get your attitude at all. Why are you so enamored by one study that shows cutting off oxygen to an infant from cutting the cord too soon makes sense and other studies which correlate vaccines to autism go by the wayside?
I am not "enamored" of anything. You are so histrionic I swear!
Wrong, let it go because I already said I'm sorry. So stop using that as fodder to add to your false conclusions. You are 100% biased and are now trying to save face. You are working hard to prove that vaccines don't cause autism or any other chronic condition. You are losing the battle especially as more people, both scientists and parents, are coming forward to dispute this lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladyshea
I've posted different types of information about the blood brain barrier from different sources to try to get something through, because you stubbornly and bewilderingly stood behind the idiot who said infants had NO blood brain barrier and produced NO bile.
You cannot win even in a legitimate debate, so why don't you prepare yourself and stop using these negative ad hom attacks on anyone who disagrees with you. You have a few people supporting you, but the wave of the anti-vax movement will swallow you up in no time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You haven't yet offered a single actual experimental study that correlates vaccines to autism, you know. You've posted a lot of article that called the research done by others into question. I ask again, why are the anti-vax scientists sitting on their asses rather than producing their own evidence
You refuse to even look at the articles or the videos. Why is that? I think you're afraid that your proof is not proof at all, and you will be shown up as being wrong, which you cannot handle.
So the current rates of autism are the equivalent, in your mind, to 2.4 million measles deaths? You can say that, but you can't even say whether you believe autism rates are decreasing, increasing, or staying steady?
I didn't say that LadyShea.
Adam asked you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
So, that's approximately 2.4 million lives saved per year, and that's just for measles. Unless the "extent of the damage" is equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year, then that's an easy net win for vaccination and, again, I'm only using the numbers from a single disease.
Are there 2.4 million people out there dying every year that you think you can pin on vaccination?
You responded with an rant titled WHY AUTISM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED WITHIN THE CURRENT MEDICAL PARADIGM
So what were you actually saying then?
Let's not forget, she prefaced the rant by asking how I even knew that the WHO's statistics were accurate. We need to wait until the facts are in, you see. Unless the facts seem to make our preferred position untenable, in which case we need to wait until some better facts come in.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
