A revolution in thought

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

And again, the known benefit includes approximately 2.4 million lives saved every single year for just one vaccine.

[LadyShea]

The current medical paradigm is not working.

How do you measure whether it is working or not? Child mortality from medical issues is at an all time LOW worldwide. That sounds like it's working to me

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I stole it from lisarea I am pretty sure. It's so descriptive as to be self explanatory....don't you think?

I love it. It conjures up images of the crazy cat lady from the simpsons, or the janitor, or the beano here in ireland.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

No, that's not it at all Angakuk. I was trying to satisfy the questioner in light of his claim regarding the eyes. It's like asking someone a history question, and if you can't answer it, then you are disqualified from running for office. Lessans is not disqualified by any means just because I didn't get some of the questions right, or had to think about them before answering. And just because I couldn't reconcile certain contradictions in my explanation, or I couldn't explain the mechanism behind efferent vision, still does not prove him wrong.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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?

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.

I was trying to figure out the answer in light of the vantage point people were coming from. I was never asked these questions because it was not through physics that he came to this finding. It just took some time for me to think it through, like the example with the camera. People are taking this as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. They can think what they want.

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...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

How do you that his knowledge is just plain wrong? Could it be that you want it to be wrong, and that's why you say this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem with the scientific method is that the conclusions drawn are often unreliable.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What method do you consider more reliable?

Sometimes intuition turns out to be more accurate than a bunch of empirical studies. A mother who sees her child decline from a healthy baby to one who is barely functioning within a short period after a vaccine is given, offers us a very important clue as to the connection between the two. We don't need to deny this association and ignore a mother's cries just because there have been no empirical tests done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The quotes paragraph, of course. Do you still not know how this works?

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.

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.

But the blunder was trivial due to the fact that the biliary system and the BBB still play a part in how metals can get into an infant's brain, and how once they are in the tissues cannot easily be excreted.

There is cause to believe that these metals (including thimerosal) could be contributing factors to many childhood illnesses.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

It is true that misinformation can spread, but more and more researchers are agreeing that vaccines may be contributing to these disorders, some of whom are biochemists.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Even if the odds are telling me it's better to vaccinate, it is still my choice to make. What if I am one of those people whose child got injured, even if it's a small risk? And what if I trusted your judgment regarding the shot and my child had a fatal reaction? How would you feel?

Please refresh my memory. What examples are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

- 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?

Yes. I know I'm biased in the direction of safety, and they just don't know enough about this new vaccine/combination schedule. As a parent I would be very cautious.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

I guess you didn't read the article I posted, which makes me feel like we're talking at each other. The only way I will continue this conversation is if I post an article and we break it down, otherwise, it's a waste of my time. Here's a small section that I think is relevant.

The primary foundational platform for nutrition and the other natural sciences is the validated assumption that whether your personal belief is that our human race originated through divine creation, millions of years of tweaking evolution, or because we were dumped off hitchhikers from passing extraterrestrial travelers, the fact is that the human body with all its countless integrated systems and functions is a true miracle to behold. And when it works, it works with extraordinary efficiency. Therefore the first area of investigation and suspicion that a natural practitioner looks to when there is disruption of wellness in a person, is what aspects aren’t working properly. Restore proper fuel (nutrition), organ functions, immune system response, and reduce toxic load and exposure, and son of a gun, more times than not, things start workin’ again.

In stark contrast, the notion that has been developed and sold by much of modern medicine and virtually all of the pharmaceutical community is that we are all hapless potential victims of every new mutated pathogen, rogue gene, disease and disorder that this dangerous world throws in our paths, and the best way to deal with all the mayhem is not through proactive actions or education that would promote superior lifestyle changes to restore bodily defense and balance, but the initiation and protracted use of drugs that have absolutely no intent or expectation of fixing the problems, but are instead designed to mimic or confound normal bodily regulation systems in order to keep the patient in a perpetual state of reliance on those drugs. The earlier in life one starts on drugs, the longer they will be both physically and mentally dependent on layered and cascading courses of medications. This is the harsh reality, which represents nothing other than a downward spiral for proper long term health management.

Unfortunately these two philosophies about the sources and paths to wellness are not only highly divergent in strategy, but represent virtual polar opposites with respect to how results are assessed and measured. The ideal outcome for natural medicine is to provide proactive preventative strategies and then be confident that an ongoing healthy report card is sufficient retrospective evidence of the wisdom of such strategies. Ideal outcome for conventional modern medicine has been reduced to reactively waiting until negative symptoms and conditions develop and then prescribing drugs and other courses of care to try to counteract those symptoms perpetually. “How long do I need to stay on these drugs Doc?” Answer: “How long to you want to live?”

Understand that the resulting process that has been established and refined within the last century through the FDA here in the U.S. may initially have had the best intentions of providing a proving ground to protect the uninformed and unwashed masses from being subjected to promoted drugs and other treatments that might be anywhere between ineffective to dangerous. But very unfortunately this same process has now been adulterated into being used to redefine and exclusively own such terms as “disease”, “treatment” and “cure”, and the game has been rigged to exclude virtually all protocols, products and services outside their powerful and growing purview from being considered as valid, effective or legitimate.

Rant | No Harm Foundation

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

You are comparing diseases that are not even in existence today, not necessarily due to herd immunity. Did you listen to the video I posted this morning?

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics | ________________Child Health Safety_________________

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

That's not true. I would absolutely give someone an antibiotic if they were seriously ill. I would probably give my child a vaccine if there was a real pandemic (not a made up one). I'm talking about overloading the body with vaccines that are unnecessary because the disease may never come back due to better nutrition, hygiene, and living conditions in the Western world.

My standard for determining what is true is based on science, and so far the science isn't looking good.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a falsehood: in fact you have only just finished saying that you in fact do not trust science at all:

I don't trust all empirical studies when you are dealing with many co-factors. Double blind studies work in many instances, but they have also failed glaringly. Look at the egg/cholesterol fiasco and you'll know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

The problem with the scientific method is that the conclusions drawn are often unreliable.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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)?

That's not it. I just don't believe that the science is reliable when it comes to pinpointing why children are getting these illnesses. The unfortunate result is that each side is holding onto their position without budging (kinda like the government shut down ), and guess who loses? The children.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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?

I will say this one more time. A flawed result can affect millions of children just like the Danish study did. As long as the results are not conclusive, I will err on the side of caution, as I urge other people to do as well.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am very interested in what you think "natural" means, and why you prefer it to "chemicals" or things that are "unnatural".

Natural to me means something the body recognizes and can utilize. It is anything that has not been adulterated or chemically altered in order to make it patentable. Synthetic drugs usually relieve symptoms but don't get to the root of the problem. This is not always true though. Antibiotics have saved countless lives. Drugs to help people with aids have saved lives. It is also true that some plants can be deadly so this approach to health does not mean all natural products are safe.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes intuition turns out to be more accurate than a bunch of empirical studies. A mother who sees her child decline from a healthy baby to one who is barely functioning within a short period after a vaccine is given, offers us a very important clue as to the connection between the two. We don't need to deny this association and ignore a mother's cries just because there have been no empirical tests done.

OMG, are you serious?

So whose intuitions should we trust to inform us?

[Adam]

Remember, though, her views are based on science. She just "clarified" the definition of "science" to include intuitions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I have no idea if they were less critical. Maybe it would have been worse if I kept saying, "I don't know". That would have not served me well, I can almost assure you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I believe it would have hurt me early on. I'm hoping that this vaccine debate won't do the same thing, as people seem to be analyzing my answers. If they think they are faith based, they will use that as a reason to dismiss the book. It's very disturbing to say the least.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

To admit to not know something is an honest and upright thing to do, as long as you know that the people who are listening to you are not going to use it against you. People can take things the wrong way. As far as this discovery goes, the standards that are being used to judge the veracity of his work need to be questioned.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I don't trust this group. I see how they hurt my father's reputation by taking everything out of context and by using the fact that I was his daughter, against me, which I predicted. If I'm not careful they will use anything I say against me, and not having an answer may be the worst thing I could do. I know that my not knowing an answer to something has no bearing on my father's discovery, but they will keep trying to find loopholes to discredit him. That's what this discussion on vaccines is really about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG, are you serious?

So whose intuitions should we trust to inform us?

Usually the person who has the intuition. A lot of times a person has an idea as to what is going on with his body. Why do you think a doctor takes a personal history and tries to get description of what the patient's symptoms. He asks questions such as where is the pain or discomfort, and what time of day does the pain occur, etc. They are clues to what is going on. This leads the doctor to ordering the right tests. A mother's intuition based on her first hand observation can be very helpful in determining what's going on with her child. Maybe this is anecdotal but it can provide very valuable information.

[LadyShea]

Intuition is great, but it offers no information on which to base public policy, nor is it science. How can it be tested for this increased "accuracy" you claim it has, for one thing off the top of my head? How do you control for confabulation, cognitive bias, or fallacious reasoning like post hoc ergo propter hoc and confusing correlation with causation?

[Vivisectus]

But the blunder was trivial due to the fact that the biliary system and the BBB still play a part in how metals can get into an infant's brain, and how once they are in the tissues cannot easily be excreted.

I would hardly call it trivial. It was in fact central to the claim. And because you knew nothing about it, you repeated that claim... demonstrating how misinformation spreads unless people reach a certain level of competence.

It is true that misinformation can spread, but more and more researchers are agreeing that vaccines may be contributing to these disorders, some of whom are biochemists.

No, they really are not. Please define

a) "These Disorders"
b) how many researchers agree, since when, and how many do not.

If not, you are making stuff up. If you where a blogger, someone else would spread it.

But hey in the new world, you would never say that unless you had proof positive that you were right, wouldn't you? It is only because you can justify it that you are talking out of your ass...

Even if the odds are telling me it's better to vaccinate, it is still my choice to make. What if I am one of those people whose child got injured, even if it's a small risk? And what if I trusted your judgment regarding the shot and my child had a fatal reaction? How would you feel?

Sure - a selfish choice, however. You just gave an example where you chose to let your child run more risk because it makes you feel better.

Yes. I know I'm biased in the direction of safety, and they just don't know enough about this new vaccine/combination schedule. As a parent I would be very cautious.

You presuppose your choice is the safest, which you cannot support. In fact, all the facts show it is in fact not the safest approach at all. Your bias is against vaccines, not "towards safety".

I guess you didn't read the article I posted, which makes me feel like we're talking at each other. The only way I will continue this conversation is if I post an article and we break it down, otherwise, it's a waste of my time. Here's a small section that I think is relevant.

Tat would be quite an ordeal - especially if you are going to be posting articles of the caliber below. Let us have a quick look:

[I]The primary foundational platform for nutrition and the other natural sciences is the validated assumption that whether your personal belief is that our human race originated through divine creation, millions of years of tweaking evolution, or because we were dumped off hitchhikers from passing extraterrestrial travelers, the fact is that the human body with all its countless integrated systems and functions is a true miracle to behold.

Useless waffle and emotive prattle.

And when it works, it works with extraordinary efficiency.

Stupid thing to say, and devoid of anything useful.

Therefore the first area of investigation and suspicion that a natural practitioner looks to when there is disruption of wellness in a person, is what aspects aren’t working properly.

More waffle with next to no information in it.

Restore proper fuel (nutrition), organ functions, immune system response, and reduce toxic load and exposure, and son of a gun, more times than not, things start workin’ again.

Facts not in evidence, full of presuppositions, and some of it is plain stupid.

In stark contrast, the notion that has been developed and sold by much of modern medicine and virtually all of the pharmaceutical community is that we are all hapless potential victims of every new mutated pathogen, rogue gene, disease and disorder that this dangerous world throws in our paths, and the best way to deal with all the mayhem is not through proactive actions or education that would promote superior lifestyle changes to restore bodily defense and balance, but the initiation and protracted use of drugs that have absolutely no intent or expectation of fixing the problems, but are instead designed to mimic or confound normal bodily regulation systems in order to keep the patient in a perpetual state of reliance on those drugs.

Facts not in evidence, and full of loaded language.

The earlier in life one starts on drugs, the longer they will be both physically and mentally dependent on layered and cascading courses of medications. This is the harsh reality, which represents nothing other than a downward spiral for proper long term health management.

Outright lies in this one, facts not in evidence, and more emotive claptrap.

Unfortunately these two philosophies about the sources and paths to wellness are not only highly divergent in strategy, but represent virtual polar opposites with respect to how results are assessed and measured. The ideal outcome for natural medicine is to provide proactive preventative strategies and then be confident that an ongoing healthy report card is sufficient retrospective evidence of the wisdom of such strategies. Ideal outcome for conventional modern medicine has been reduced to reactively waiting until negative symptoms and conditions develop and then prescribing drugs and other courses of care to try to counteract those symptoms perpetually. “How long do I need to stay on these drugs Doc?” Answer: “How long to you want to live?”

More of same.

Understand that the resulting process that has been established and refined within the last century through the FDA here in the U.S. may initially have had the best intentions of providing a proving ground to protect the uninformed and unwashed masses from being subjected to promoted drugs and other treatments that might be anywhere between ineffective to dangerous. But very unfortunately this same process has now been adulterated into being used to redefine and exclusively own such terms as “disease”, “treatment” and “cure”, and the game has been rigged to exclude virtually all protocols, products and services outside their powerful and growing purview from being considered as valid, effective or legitimate.

Untrue: the only problem is that ypou have to prove your protocols work in clinical tests.

Well, I am glad that is over. Now what on earth was the point of that?

You are comparing diseases that are not even in existence today, not necessarily due to herd immunity. Did you listen to the video I posted this morning?

Far from it - the majority are unfortunately not yet wiped out, and thanks yo anti-vaxxers, quite a few are making a comeback. Worse: by allowing small clusters to survive, it is possible they will mutate and develop new resistances to vaccines.

That's not true. I would absolutely give someone an antibiotic if they were seriously ill. I would probably give my child a vaccine if there was a real pandemic (not a made up one). I'm talking about overloading the body with vaccines that are unnecessary because the disease may never come back due to better nutrition, hygiene, and living conditions in the Western world.

Then why are the measles coming back among unvaccinated kids in the Netherlands? Are they all poorly nourished? We lost 1 kid per thousand. Why is pertussis killing kids again?

I don't trust all empirical studies when you are dealing with many co-factors. Double blind studies work in many instances, but they have also failed glaringly. Look at the egg/cholesterol fiasco and you'll know what I mean.

There is no qualitative difference in the studies you do not trust, except one: they do not agree with your biases.

That's not it. I just don't believe that the science is reliable when it comes to pinpointing why children are getting these illnesses. The unfortunate result is that each side is holding onto their position without budging (kinda like the government shut down ), and guess who loses? The children.

Like I said: you don't trust science that does not agree with your bias. SImple as that.

I will say this one more time. A flawed result can affect millions of children just like the Danish study did. As long as the results are not conclusive, I will err on the side of caution, as I urge other people to do as well.

No, you err on the side of your bias. Caution should tell you to vaccinate: those are known risks, and they are considerable. In stead, you avoid risks that you admit you do not know by accepting ones that we know are very real.

Natural to me means something the body recognizes and can utilize. It is anything that has not been adulterated or chemically altered in order to make it patentable. Synthetic drugs usually relieve symptoms but don't get to the root of the problem. This is not always true though. Antibiotics have saved countless lives. Drugs to help people with aids have saved lives. It is also true that some plants can be deadly so this approach to health does not mean all natural products are safe.

Natural to me means something the body recognizes and can utilize.

What substances do you think the body "recognizes" and how does it recognize it?

It is anything that has not been adulterated or chemically altered in order to make it patentable.

On what grounds should we avoid these?

This is not always true though. Antibiotics have saved countless lives. Drugs to help people with aids have saved lives. It is also true that some plants can be deadly so this approach to health does not mean all natural products are safe.

Then making a decision based on "naturalness" is useless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

And again, the known benefit includes approximately 2.4 million lives saved every single year for just one vaccine.

Then why are parent's, researchers, clinicians, and a number of pediatricians worried?

In recent months, courts, governments and vaccine manufacturers have quietly conceded the fact that the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine most likely does cause autism and stomach diseases. Pharmaceutical companies have even gone so far as to pay out massive monetary awards, totaling in the millions, to the victims in an attempt to compensate them for damages and to buy their silence.

Kept on the down-low: Courts quietly confirm MMR Vaccine causes Autism -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Intuition is great, but it offers no information on which to base public policy, nor is it science. How can it be tested for this increased "accuracy" you claim it has, for one thing off the top of my head? How do you control for confabulation, cognitive bias, or fallacious reasoning like post hoc ergo propter hoc and confusing correlation with causation?

Public policy is to protect the public, but what we're seeing are a lot of lies and cover ups. That is bad public policy. All those big words mean nothing when observation [by an observant parent] makes it quite clear and trumps any scientific experiment that a causal relationship exists when a child changes from being outgoing and loving to being completely lethargic and non-responsive in the matter of an hour (not two hours, not three hours, but one hour) of when the vaccine was given. Can you give me that much?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not it at all Angakuk. I was trying to satisfy the questioner in light of his claim regarding the eyes. It's like asking someone a history question, and if you can't answer it, then you are disqualified from running for office. Lessans is not disqualified by any means just because I didn't get some of the questions right, or had to think about them before answering.

This behaviour is not weaseling. It is not what we are complaining about when we say that you are weaseling. Trying to satisfy the questioner is fine. As is thinking about the answer, and even getting some questions wrong. All of that is perfectly fine. Your weaseling is what you do after all of this, when you refuse to acknowledge a mistake or even try to answer subsequent questions, and instead do nothing but evade. That is weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And just because I couldn't reconcile certain contradictions in my explanation, or I couldn't explain the mechanism behind efferent vision, still does not prove him wrong.

Actually, irreconcilable contradictions do prove him wrong. That is as strong as disproof can possibly get.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to figure out the answer in light of the vantage point people were coming from. I was never asked these questions because it was not through physics that he came to this finding. It just took some time for me to think it through, like the example with the camera. People are taking this as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about.

You still haven't thought it through. That is what you persistently refused to do. Whenever we would try to get you to think things through you would weasel and evade instead. And people are quite right to take your responses as proof that you don't know what your talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you that his knowledge is just plain wrong? Could it be that you want it to be wrong, and that's why you say this?

No, it's because efferent vision has no evidential support, is directly refuted by all of the available evidence, and cannot be explained without contradiction. Again, that's as strong as an opposing case can ever get.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes intuition turns out to be more accurate than a bunch of empirical studies.

Well, you're in trouble now, for I have a strong intuition that Lessans was wrong. So I think you should forget about future empirical evidence, which you agree can be flawed, and instead just trust my intuition. If you're going to say we should ignore evidence in favour of your evidence-free intuitions, then we can do the same. How are you going to determine which intuitions are accurate and which should be trusted, without appealing to actual evidence which you are asking us to reject in favour of intuition?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea if they were less critical. Maybe it would have been worse if I kept saying, "I don't know". That would have not served me well, I can almost assure you.

In your opinion, has your weaseling worked? Do you think your dishonest evasion of awkward questions been better than being direct and honest would have been? If you have no idea, why keep doing it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe it would have hurt me early on. I'm hoping that this vaccine debate won't do the same thing, as people seem to be analyzing my answers. If they think they are faith based, they will use that as a reason to dismiss the book. It's very disturbing to say the least.

Why would anyone take your faith-based answers on vaccines as a reason to dismiss the book? Do you realize that you are doing the exact same things on this topic as you did when discussing the book? You are still making things up, weaseling, and asking us to accept faith and intuition over actual evidence.

But regardless, you haven't here answered what I asked: 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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To admit to not know something is an honest and upright thing to do, as long as you know that the people who are listening to you are not going to use it against you. People can take things the wrong way.

So do you think it is a good idea then to be dishonest and evasive whenever you fear people may use your honesty against you? Does that actually solve anything? Which do you think gives the worse impression - seeing you get something wrong but honestly admitting the mistake, or seeing you get something wrong and then dishonestly weaseling and evading the issue?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as this discovery goes, the standards that are being used to judge the veracity of his work need to be questioned.

So go ahead and question them. Tell us what standards you think we should be using instead. Do you think we should all adopt blind uncritical acceptance? Do you think we should ignore evidence and flat-out contradictions proving him wrong? Do you think we should share your faith that future evidence will vindicate him? Do you think we should adopt standards which if adopted universally would not allow us to rule out a flat Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't trust this group. I see how they hurt my father's reputation by taking everything out of context and by using the fact that I was his daughter, against me, which I predicted.

Again you seem to think that dishonesty is preferable whenever the truth might work against you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I'm not careful they will use anything I say against me, and not having an answer may be the worst thing I could do.

Is not having an answer going to be worse than making up a wrong answer and then dishonestly weaseling and evading when this is pointed out? How bad has the actual outcome and response been when you've simply been honest and admitted that you don't know something?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that my not knowing an answer to something has no bearing on my father's discovery, but they will keep trying to find loopholes to discredit him. That's what this discussion on vaccines is really about.

Huh? How is this discovery on vaccines really about your father?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would hardly call it trivial. It was in fact central to the claim. And because you knew nothing about it, you repeated that claim... demonstrating how misinformation spreads unless people reach a certain level of competence.

Again, you are missing the point and focusing on a triviality because it remains quite clear that an infant cannot excrete mercury as well as an adult.

There is cause to believe that these metals (including thimerosal) could be contributing factors to many childhood illnesses.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

It is true that misinformation can spread, but more and more researchers are agreeing that vaccines may be contributing to these disorders, some of whom are biochemists.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, they really are not. Please define

a) "These Disorders"
b) how many researchers agree, since when, and how many do not.

If not, you are making stuff up. If you where a blogger, someone else would spread it.

But hey in the new world, you would never say that unless you had proof positive that you were right, wouldn't you? It is only because you can justify it that you are talking out of your ass..

I'm not making stuff up. And what are you ranting and raving about regarding the new world? I would not give advice that I'm not sure of. If in the new world you want to, and you feel strongly that you know whereof you speak, then who is stopping you from giving it? There is no one looking over your shoulder. But you would have to live with the guilt if someone was hurt by your advice. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Even if the odds are telling me it's better to vaccinate, it is still my choice to make. What if I am one of those people whose child got injured, even if it's a small risk? And what if I trusted your judgment regarding the shot and my child had a fatal reaction? How would you feel?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure - a selfish choice, however. You just gave an example where you chose to let your child run more risk because it makes you feel better.

You still don't get it. This is not a black and white subject Vivisectus. There are lot of unknowns.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

- 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?

I believe that the studies coming out are showing that there is a correlation between vaccines and immune dysfunction in some children. I'm not telling you what to believe.

Yes. I know I'm biased in the direction of safety, and they just don't know enough about this new vaccine/combination schedule. As a parent I would be very cautious.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You presuppose your choice is the safest, which you cannot support. In fact, all the facts show it is in fact not the safest approach at all. Your bias is against vaccines, not "towards safety".

You have a different mindset than I do. I don't believe vaccinations for every new disease that comes down the pike is necessary, and can be dangerous. You can think I'm selfish if you want.

I guess you didn't read the article I posted, which makes me feel like we're talking at each other. The only way I will continue this conversation is if I post an article and we break it down, otherwise, it's a waste of my time. Here's a small section that I think is relevant.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That would be quite an ordeal - especially if you are going to be posting articles of the caliber below. Let us have a quick look:

[I]The primary foundational platform for nutrition and the other natural sciences is the validated assumption that whether your personal belief is that our human race originated through divine creation, millions of years of tweaking evolution, or because we were dumped off hitchhikers from passing extraterrestrial travelers, the fact is that the human body with all its countless integrated systems and functions is a true miracle to behold.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Useless waffle and emotive prattle.

And when it works, it works with extraordinary efficiency.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Stupid thing to say, and devoid of anything useful.

Therefore the first area of investigation and suspicion that a natural practitioner looks to when there is disruption of wellness in a person, is what aspects aren’t working properly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More waffle with next to no information in it.

Restore proper fuel (nutrition), organ functions, immune system response, and reduce toxic load and exposure, and son of a gun, more times than not, things start workin’ again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Facts not in evidence, full of presuppositions, and some of it is plain stupid.

In stark contrast, the notion that has been developed and sold by much of modern medicine and virtually all of the pharmaceutical community is that we are all hapless potential victims of every new mutated pathogen, rogue gene, disease and disorder that this dangerous world throws in our paths, and the best way to deal with all the mayhem is not through proactive actions or education that would promote superior lifestyle changes to restore bodily defense and balance, but the initiation and protracted use of drugs that have absolutely no intent or expectation of fixing the problems, but are instead designed to mimic or confound normal bodily regulation systems in order to keep the patient in a perpetual state of reliance on those drugs.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Facts not in evidence, and full of loaded language.

The earlier in life one starts on drugs, the longer they will be both physically and mentally dependent on layered and cascading courses of medications. This is the harsh reality, which represents nothing other than a downward spiral for proper long term health management.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Outright lies in this one, facts not in evidence, and more emotive claptrap.

Unfortunately these two philosophies about the sources and paths to wellness are not only highly divergent in strategy, but represent virtual polar opposites with respect to how results are assessed and measured. The ideal outcome for natural medicine is to provide proactive preventative strategies and then be confident that an ongoing healthy report card is sufficient retrospective evidence of the wisdom of such strategies. Ideal outcome for conventional modern medicine has been reduced to reactively waiting until negative symptoms and conditions develop and then prescribing drugs and other courses of care to try to counteract those symptoms perpetually. “How long do I need to stay on these drugs Doc?” Answer: “How long to you want to live?”

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More of same.

Understand that the resulting process that has been established and refined within the last century through the FDA here in the U.S. may initially have had the best intentions of providing a proving ground to protect the uninformed and unwashed masses from being subjected to promoted drugs and other treatments that might be anywhere between ineffective to dangerous. But very unfortunately this same process has now been adulterated into being used to redefine and exclusively own such terms as “disease”, “treatment” and “cure”, and the game has been rigged to exclude virtually all protocols, products and services outside their powerful and growing purview from being considered as valid, effective or legitimate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Untrue: the only problem is that you have to prove your protocols work in clinical tests.

Well, I am glad that is over. Now what on earth was the point of that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

You are comparing diseases that are not even in existence today, not necessarily due to herd immunity. Did you listen to the video I posted this morning?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Far from it - the majority are unfortunately not yet wiped out, and thanks yo anti-vaxxers, quite a few are making a comeback. Worse: by allowing small clusters to survive, it is possible they will mutate and develop new resistances to vaccines.

What scaremongering!!

That's not true. I would absolutely give someone an antibiotic if they were seriously ill. I would probably give my child a vaccine if there was a real pandemic (not a made up one). I'm talking about overloading the body with vaccines that are unnecessary because the disease may never come back due to better nutrition, hygiene, and living conditions in the Western world.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then why are the measles coming back among unvaccinated kids in the Netherlands? Are they all poorly nourished? We lost 1 kid per thousand. Why is pertussis killing kids again?

Actually, the children were vaccinated.

I don't trust all empirical studies when you are dealing with many co-factors. Double blind studies work in many instances, but they have also failed glaringly. Look at the egg/cholesterol fiasco and you'll know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is no qualitative difference in the studies you do not trust, except one: they do not agree with your biases.

That's not true, but you have to look at the design of the test. Empirical studies to prove that a drug or vaccine is not harmful to the body is virtually impossible using this type of methodology because you don't have all of the contributing factors that could be playing a part in the cascade of events that are leading to the disorders we're seeing today.

That's not it. I just don't believe that the science is reliable when it comes to pinpointing why children are getting these illnesses. The unfortunate result is that each side is holding onto their position without budging (kinda like the government shut down ), and guess who loses? The children.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Like I said: you don't trust science that does not agree with your bias. SImple as that.

I like when science works. I don't like when science doesn't work, and yet they continue to claim their studies are irrefutable.

You are wrong here because what you don't know can hurt you. I'm glad you're not my doctor.

The body knows how to utilize natural chemicals by its structure. Example: progestin and Premarin were used by menopausal women and they had to stop the study because women were getting breast cancer. Natural bioidentical hormones don't seem to cause the same problem.

On what grounds should we avoid these?

I'm not saying we should avoid all drugs if we absolutely need them, but it is my philosophy that we should make an effort to try to heal the body through natural means first.

This is not always true though. Antibiotics have saved countless lives. Drugs to help people with aids have saved lives. It is also true that some plants can be deadly so this approach to health does not mean all natural products are safe.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then making a decision based on "naturalness" is useless.

I am speaking for myself. I would rather prevent an illness from arising by eating healthy foods, getting fresh air, avoiding stress, than getting ill and having to rely on drugs. It appears that natural living is beneficial in ways that cannot be duplicated in a test tube.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To admit to not know something is an honest and upright thing to do, as long as you know that the people who are listening to you are not going to use it against you.

In other words, it is the right thing to do except when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable or doesn't suit your purpose. That is some fine situational ethics right there. For someone who tends to see things in absolutes your ethics are remarkably flexible when your own self-interest is at stake.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Huh? How is this discovery on vaccines really about your father?

That is a damn silly question, Spacemonkey. You know full well that everything is about her father.

[Vivisectus]

Again, you are missing the point and focusing on a triviality because it remains quite clear that an infant cannot excrete mercury as well as an adult.

Hardly trivial - but that is beside the point.

What I am getting at is that a lot of the anti-vax literature consists of people with little medical knowledge and training repeating each others mistakes without noticing, just like you did right there.

[quote]

I'm not making stuff up. And what are you ranting and raving about regarding the new world? I would not give advice that I'm not sure of. If in the new world you want to, and you feel strongly that you know whereof you speak, then who is stopping you from giving it? There is no one looking over your shoulder. But you would have to live with the guilt if someone was hurt by your advice. It's as simple as that.

And yet you cannot tell me

- How many scientists agree, or how else you know that more and more scientists agree
- What these disorders are, how often they happen, and how this number is increasing

...so you are just making that up. Or, possibly, repeating information you read somewhere without checking up on it.

"ranting and raving"? I would not dare try that in front of a mistress in the art of histrionics.

You still don't get it. This is not a black and white subject Vivisectus. There are lot of unknowns.

The unknowns are all against vaccinating, though. What we actually know speaks in favor.

I believe that the studies coming out are showing that there is a correlation between vaccines and immune dysfunction in some children. I'm not telling you what to believe.

Wow. That is amazing - because the actual studies say otherwise.

You have a different mindset than I do. I don't believe vaccinations for every new disease that comes down the pike is necessary, and can be dangerous. You can think I'm selfish if you want.

Again, all irrationality is simply covered by a blanket "I believe", despite a complete lack of evidence.

What scaremongering!!

Really? Measles are back. Pertussis is on the rise. Nigeria has become a net exporter of Polio cases all over the world.

And the sad thing is that we were set to get rid of the measles altogether - this has now been postponed by a decade thanks to all this nonsense.

Actually, the children were vaccinated.

Nonsense - out of 3000 cases, 94% was not vaccinated. The epidemic remained right inside the dutch Bible belt, the area with the lowest vaccination levels. There were more than 150 hospitalizations with severe complications, and 3 kids died.

Are you lying or just repeating bad information again? My information comes straight from the Dutch National Institute for Health.

That's not true, but you have to look at the design of the test.

But you repeatedly show that you just don't understand these tests. And the ones you dismiss you seem to know just as little about as the ones you accept. Just look at your lever obsession in dog sight tests.

Empirical studies to prove that a drug or vaccine is not harmful to the body is virtually impossible using this type of methodology because you don't have all of the contributing factors that could be playing a part in the cascade of events that are leading to the disorders we're seeing today.

That is complete nonsense. Please explain how and why this should be in stead of just making a vague blanket claim.

I like when science works. I don't like when science doesn't work, and yet they continue to claim their studies are irrefutable.

More nonsense. And you simply decide science does not work based on your bias, not on any defect is specific studies: most of the time you do not even know how something was studied.


[quote]

You are wrong here because what you don't know can hurt you. I'm glad you're not my doctor.

What you DO know can hurt you too, and is a lot more likely to do so.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am very interested in what you think "natural" means, and why you prefer it to "chemicals" or things that are "unnatural".

The body knows how to utilize natural chemicals by its structure. Example: progestin and Premarin were used by menopausal women and they had to stop the study because women were getting breast cancer. Natural bioidentical hormones don't seem to cause the same problem.

Oh deary deary dear. There really is not a single health woo fad you miss out on isn't there?

First off, premarin is actually quite "natural": it is made from hormones derived from the urine of pregnant horses. We are still trying to work out exactly what is causing the elevated risks of breast cancer and strokes: it could be that some of the "natural" ingredients include hormones that are unique to horses, and that these are the culprit.

Secondly, the "bioidentical" hormones are just as synthesized as the older one, the only difference being that the raw ingredients in this case are plants. They are the same hormones as the body produces, however: the synthesised results are the same molecules.

At this time, we simply do not know if they carry the same risk, a different risk, or (hopefully, considering the number of people taking it!) a much lower risk. The same studies have not been done. The FDA has applied the same "black box" warning requirement to both the hormones human bodies produce and the similar ones we create out of horse urine and steroids, on the assumption that long-term use will have the same effect.

However, the people who sell "bioidentical" hormone replacement therapy market it aggressively as a safe alternative. They can get away with this because they use compounding pharmacies to create products that are made up of hormones that, individually, have to carry the black box warnings... but once compounded into a new formula by these guys they suddenly do not have to anymore, as they are not even FDA approved.

If they did not use compounding pharmacies, they would have to carry the same warnings.

This is actually a shortened version of the whole story as it gets a little bit more complicated still. But I think we have enough here to show that, once again, you trot out the simple story the marketing people tell you without really checking up on it. You buy into the emotive pitch:

"These are natural hormones that the body recognizes"

because it agrees with your bias, and do not look further into any of it.

I am speaking for myself but I would rather prevent an illness from arising by eating healthy foods, getting fresh air, avoiding stress, than getting ill and having to rely on drugs. It appears that natural living is beneficial in ways that cannot be duplicated in a test tube.

As if the two are somehow mutually exclusive... also, lol @ "it appears" - that is just another assumption on your part that you cannot and do not really support.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you measure whether it is working or not? Child mortality from medical issues is at an all time LOW worldwide. That sounds like it's working to me

The child mortality rate is going down thank goodness (did you look at the video I posted yesterday on the trend worldwide?); but chronic illness is quite another. We don't know the extent that vaccines play a part in these illnesses, and it's immoral that big pharma is claiming otherwise.

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4...

[LadyShea]

The child mortality rate is going down thank goodness (did you look at the video I posted yesterday on the trend worldwide?); but chronic illness is quite another.

You have yet to define "chronic illnesses". You previously mentioned autism, asthma, and allergies....is it just those three? Is autism a "different story"? You have yet to tell me whether you think autism rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady.

You have fibromyalgia...is that one of these illnesses you keep talking about? Have natural means been able to cure that? Do you think the government's research into the causes and mechanisms of fibromyalgia is similarly worthless?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And let us not forget that this is way more natural, and therefor better!

You are so invested in being right, that you won't even consider the possibility that a natural approach may be better than a drug approach when it comes to health. If an article comes from any of the anti-vaxers, you dismiss it immediately as being just another way of selling products and turning a profit. But you don't consider the fact that big pharma and government are in cahoots. Why is that?

Do you know anyone that believes in poisoning the body to "get well"? The sad truth is that most ill-informed people think that un-natural medicine is the only way to solve health problems. By brainwashing doctors (in medical school); controlling politicians (with lobbying efforts) and "social conditioning" (through T.V. ads) - the pharmaceutical drug cartel has created a system of sick care that profits shareholders and promotes dis-ease. ("insider" proof below - keep reading)

Marcia Angell, M.D., the first female editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, once said this about the pharmaceutical industry:

"Once upon a time...Drug companies promoted drugs to treat disease. Now it is often just the opposite, they promote disease to fit their drugs."

Don't become a victim of conventional (narrow-minded) medicine. The medical literature is filled with highly-effective, natural ways to prevent - even treat - disease without harmful side effects. The next NaturalNews Talk Hour will reveal specific examples about how nutritional supplements are BETTER than toxic drugs!

Visit: Natural Health 365 | Natural Health Solutions | Natural Healing | Natural Cures and enter your email for FREE show details + a FREE gift!

The reason why modern "healthcare" is broken

Dr. Angell, says it all about how controlling (and corrupt) the pharmaceutical industry has become. Remember, Dr. Angell worked as the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for over 20 years! In other words - she knows how the system works...

"This industry uses its wealth and power to co-op every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, Academic Medical Centers, and the medical profession itself." - Marcia Angell

Eliminating disease is easier than you think

Clearly, natural medicine provides a better way to prevent, even reverse many of the illnesses we experience today, such as, migraines, high blood pressure, arthritis, obesity - the list goes on and on. Avoiding processed foods with harmful ingredients, detoxifying the body (naturally) of unwanted chemicals and supplementing your diet with food-based vitamins and minerals will dramatically reduce your dependency on drugs and the "modern" sick care system.

In the United States alone, over-the-counter and prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death and some would argue it's even worse. When was the last time you heard about a friend or family member getting hurt by taking Vitamin D to boost immunity or essential fatty acids for a healthy heart and brain? For best results - always take a natural approach.

The NaturalNews Talk Hour begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Click this link - Natural Health 365 | Natural Health Solutions | Natural Healing | Natural Cures and enter your email for FREE show details + a FREE gift!

This week's guest: Michael Murray, N.D. - a leading authority on natural medicine

Discover the healing power of Vitamins, Minerals, and other supplements - Thu. July 5

Dr. Michael Murray is a graduate, faculty member, and serves on the Board of Regents of Bastyr University. He is co-author of "A Textbook of Natural Medicine", the definitive textbook on naturopathic medicine for physicians, as well as the consumer version - the "Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine".

For nearly thirty years, Dr. Murray has been compiling a massive data-base of original scientific studies from the medical literature. He has personally collected over 70,000 articles from the scientific literature which provide strong evidence on the effectiveness of diet, vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural measures in the maintenance of health and the treatment of disease.

Don't become a victim of conventional (narrow-minded) medicine. The medical literature is filled with highly-effective, natural ways to prevent - even treat - disease without harmful side effects. The next NaturalNews Talk Hour will reveal specific examples about how nutritional supplements are BETTER than toxic drugs!

Nutritional supplements prove better than toxic drugs

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Adam asked you

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 responded that way because number one, it's been reported that children get measles even after they have been vaccinated. Secondly, there is a bigger issue here as to whether these shots cause a worse problem than the disease itself if a child becomes developmentally delayed or worse.

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Measles.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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 don't get it. Why do you have to put yourself on a pedestal by lowering other well-meaning people, including scientists and clinicians? What gives you the right to call people idiots and asses? Do you ever look in the mirror at yourself and make efforts to change your behavior? I do. I don't know why you and others in here do this unless it's to make yourselves look like you know more than you do. It really takes away rather than adds to your rebuttals.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The child mortality rate is going down thank goodness (did you look at the video I posted yesterday on the trend worldwide?); but chronic illness is quite another. We don't know the extent that vaccines play a part in these illnesses, and it's immoral that big pharma is claiming otherwise.

Proof positive that you have to be white, well-fed, and really without too much to do all day in order to get upset about vaccines.