A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Weasel. Although measles is still a top 5 killer of children worldwide, there are 2.4 million fewer measles death now than there were before vaccinations.

The question to you is this: is the "extent of the damage" from vaccines equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year?

Is your answer that the possibility that vaccines might cause developmental delays is equivalent to 2.4 million deaths from measles? Do those equal out in your mind?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

There is an autistic spectrum LadyShea, which is why this topic is not going away. It is extremely difficult to connect these disorders with these adjuvants that are growing in number. You want me to pull a number out of my head that you can refute. It's not that easy. The fact that there are children who show an immediate and catastrophic response to certain vaccines that contain mercury and other toxins is enough to make people concerned that there could be a correlation with other chronic conditions, which Dr. William Hay noted after mass vaccinations took hold as far back as the 1930's. Whether there is a connection is still under investigation, but this should give parents pause before injecting their newborns with these cumulative adjuvants, especially before an infant is even 6 hours old.

Our organization fully appreciates the loud and frantic debate that there may indeed be a multitude if not a hundred different and interacting factors that are contributing to ASD’s alone, so yes, the detective work is laborious to say the least. However we truly believe that when considering the unprecedented escalation in diagnosed cases over the last couple of decades, logic suggests that there may be no more than a handful of contributing factors that are actually responsible for the vast portion of the straight up spike in incidence. So for us, rather than devote our resources toward trying to locate 95% of the hundred or more triggers responsible for maybe 5% of the cases of Autism, we choose to try to target and isolate the 5% of factors that just may be responsible for 95% of the spike in occurrence. This strategy just seems to make the most sense at this critical point in time.

http://www.noharmfoundation.org/?page_id=543

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

show spoiler

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.

Only because it seemed that, once again, you are denying a direct link with vaccines (due to their toxic soup of adjuvants and the frequency in which they are given) that have nothing to do with trauma at birth, even though cord clamping too soon could deprive the baby of oxygen and be one of the reasons why some infants don't fare well when given vaccines.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You don't look in the mirror and try to change yourself from a weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't look in the mirror and try to change yourself from a weasel.

Immature answer caught caught on tape.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only because it seemed that, once again, you are denying a direct link with vaccines (due to their toxic soup of adjuvants and the frequency in which they are given) that have nothing to do with trauma at birth, even though cord clamping too soon could deprive the baby of oxygen and be one of the reasons why some infants don't fare well when given vaccines.

No direct link has been established. If the anti-vax scientists would actually do some studies of their own, rather than limiting themselves to criticizing the studies done by others, maybe they could establish a link.

These particluar researchers, who are also pro-nature and anti vax, think a different mainstream medicine practice is most responsible for various chronic illnesses, and that the vaccines are an indirect, sometimes aggravating factor. So who's right? How do you personally evaluate these claims and conclusions and decide which ones are probably more correct? I told you why this paper was more convincing to me than anything you've posted.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you ever look in the mirror at yourself and make efforts to change your behavior? I do.

Do you? In what ways have you managed to change your behaviour?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Immature answer caught caught on tape.

Your ad hom rant against me as a method to avoid responding relevantly also caught on tape.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is an autistic spectrum LadyShea, which is why this topic is not going away. It is extremely difficult to connect these disorders with these adjuvants that are growing in number. You want me to pull a number out of my head that you can refute. It's not that easy. The fact that there are children who show an immediate and catastrophic response to certain vaccines that contain mercury and other toxins is enough to make people concerned that there could be a correlation with other chronic conditions, which Dr. William Hay noted after mass vaccinations took hold as far back as the 1930's. Whether there is a connection is still under investigation, but this should give parents pause before injecting their newborns with these cumulative adjuvants, especially before an infant is even 6 hours old.

So are you going to define the "chronic illnesses" you keep referring to?

Are you ever going to answer whether you think autism rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady? Note I am not asking for a number, I am asking for a general trend as to overall rates.

It seems like you are unable to formulate an opinion, due to there being a disagreement on this in the anti-vax community. You don't know who to believe? You don't know which set of researchers makes the best case? You don't have a method of evaluating claims at all? Why are you unable to answer a simple question regarding your own opinion?

[LadyShea]

it's been reported that children get measles even after they have been vaccinated.

Some children, yes. There are cases where the vaccines don't work in an individual, for whatever reason. This is one of the reasons to push for herd immunity, to protect those that can't be immunized for medical reasons, and those for whom the vaccine does not protect.

That being said, of the 160 cases of measles in the US this year, 131 were unvaccinated, and 9 had an unknown vaccination status. The largest outbreak since 96 was directly the result of an intentionally unvaccinated individual introducing it to his largely unvaccinated community

On March 13, 2013, an intentionally unvaccinated adolescent aged 17 years returned to New York City from London, United Kingdom, while infectious with measles. This importation led to the largest outbreak of measles in the United States since 1996 (1).

Investigation of suspected cases included patient interviews, medical record reviews, and ascertainment of immunization records. Testing for measles immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) and testing for measles virus RNA by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were performed, and measles genotype was determined. Cases were identified in residents of New York City and classified according to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists clinical case definition (2). Exposed contacts were identified, and control measures were implemented.

A total of 58 cases* were identified, including six generations of measles infection in two neighborhoods of the borough of Brooklyn. All cases were in members of the orthodox Jewish community. No case was identified in a person who had documented measles vaccination at the time of exposure; 12 (21%) of the cases were in infants too young (aged <12 months) for routine immunization with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Complications included pneumonia in one child; two pregnant women required hospitalization, including one who miscarried.

Notes from the Field: Measles Outbreak Among Members of a Religious Community — Brooklyn, New York, March–June 2013

So this unvaccinated person caused a miscarriage and 12 babies to get sick. Yay for free choice for him! Too bad for everyone else, huh?

1 unvaccinated person with measles contracted in India led to over 1000 people being exposed. What if they had all been unvaccinated?

On April 14, 2013, public health officials in North Carolina were notified of suspected measles infections in two unvaccinated members of a family. Measles was confirmed by laboratory testing at the State Laboratory of Public Health on April 16, 2013. Investigators learned that a third unvaccinated member of the household had developed fever and rash 11 days earlier, after returning to the United States from a 3-month visit to India, but measles had not been suspected until household contacts sought evaluation for similar symptoms.

During April and May, direct and indirect transmission from the returning traveler resulted in 22 identified cases of measles (including the two cases first reported), for a total of 23 cases overall. Most cases were among residents of a largely unvaccinated religious community in rural North Carolina.

Investigation of the contacts of these persons led to the identification of approximately 1,000 exposed persons from various settings, including health-care facilities, schools, and community events. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a6.htm

So much for these diseases not making a comeback should we stop vaccinating!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Although measles is still a top 5 killer of children worldwide, there are 2.4 million fewer measles death now than there were before vaccinations.

The question to you is this: is the "extent of the damage" from vaccines equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year?

Is your answer that the possibility that vaccines might cause developmental delays is equivalent to 2.4 million deaths from measles? Do those equal out in your mind?

Your stats are way off. Did you not listen to the stats regarding the wave of diseases that are lessening without vaccines? You ignore my questions anytime you feel like it. That's not good LadyShea, and shows me that YOU are cherry picking the results of these studies, not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some children, yes. There are cases where the vaccines don't work in an individual, for whatever reason. This is one of the reasons to push for herd immunity, to protect those that can't be immunized for medical reasons, and those for whom the vaccine does not protect.

That being said, of the 160 cases of measles in the US this year, 131 were unvaccinated, and 9 had an unknown vaccination status. The largest outbreak since 96 was directly the result of an intentionally unvaccinated individual introducing it to his largely unvaccinated community

So this unvaccinated person caused a miscarriage and 12 babies to get sick. Yay for free choice for him! Too bad for everyone else, huh?

1 unvaccinated person with measles contracted in India led to over 1000 people being exposed. What if they had all been unvaccinated?

So much for these diseases not making a comeback should we stop vaccinating!

There is so much propaganda there is no way I can convince you that there is a risk with vaccines. You believe the government studies hook, line, and sinker (which do not proof conclusively that vaccines aren't responsible for much that is going on with chronic illnesses). I cannot go on discussing this because you will want to win this argument at all costs, without understanding that empirical studies done thus far are in no way conclusive. In fact, based on these scientific studies there is reason to believe that there is a connection. I gave you a lot to digest but all you do is come back with the same old same old. I believe you do this because you want science to be right no matter what the opposition says. That's understandable but at the expense of truth is just plain wrong when there is so much at stake. This presents a stalemate; a no win situation, so I'm going to jump ship on this issue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your stats are way off.

Which stats? Are you saying the stats on worldwide measles deaths are way off? You can prove that with actual documentation, right?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is so much propaganda there is no way I can convince you that there is a risk with vaccines.

Those are actual cases of actual measles outbreaks and directly addressed your vague and rather pointless statement about vaccinated children getting measles. How do you figure it's propaganda? The rest of your post was snipped due to being completely irrelevant to my points.

[LadyShea]

I'm going to jump ship on this issue.

Okay, should we go back to discussing efferent sight? How about pronoun usage and what it doesn't mean to dead people? Shall we go over the modal fallacy again so you can attempt to refute the charge as it pertains to the greater satisfaction principle? Do you want to further explore the statement that people will fall in love with sexual organs in the new world?

What would you like to discuss instead?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Although measles is still a top 5 killer of children worldwide, there are 2.4 million fewer measles death now than there were before vaccinations.

The question to you is this: is the "extent of the damage" from vaccines equivalent to 2.4 million people dying every year?

Is your answer that the possibility that vaccines might cause developmental delays is equivalent to 2.4 million deaths from measles? Do those equal out in your mind?

There is disagreement that the MMR vaccine has saved the equivalant of 2.4 million people. In fact, there is disagreement that this many people have ever died from measles due to the lack of vaccines.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordp...statistics.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, should we go back to discussing efferent sight? How about pronoun usage and what it doesn't mean to dead people? Shall we go over the modal fallacy again so you can attempt to refute the charge as it pertains to the greater satisfaction principle? Do you want to further explore the statement that people will fall in love with sexual organs in the new world?

What would you like to discuss instead?

You are so snippety and self-righteous it's funny. You keep insisting that the satisfaction principle is a modal fallacy. When I show you why it's not, it goes in one ear and out the other. As far as falling in love with sexual organs, you are taking what he said out of context. You have absolutely no idea why he said that, or even what it relates to. Finally, I do not want to go back to discussing efferent sight. Maybe we should all take a break from this thread. It might do us all good.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Because what I'm being asked really doesn't relate to what he discovered. I told you all along that you are coming from a perspective regarding light that you believe disproves his claim. I don't. And, once again, this was not how he came to his finding therefore it's not how his claim is going to be validated. I see no reason why I should continue to answer questions regarding photons that will not get us anywhere. If you call that evading, oh well.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Spacemonkey, there are no irreconcilable contradictions. If you want to believe that there are, go on believing, but your reasoning is incorrect.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bingo! Your questions make it seem like his observations couldn't be true in light of all the opposing evidence. That's why I am not answering these questions anymore because it is not fair to my father who did not have to be an astronomer or an expert in physics or optics to know that his observations regarding the eyes were spot on.

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?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

That is so not true Spacemonkey. You are failing to understand why there is a discrepancy between light that travels (afferent vision) and light that allows the object to be seen since light, in the efferent account, becomes a necessary condition of sight, not a cause. Let's not get into this again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I'm not saying that anyone should trust only intuition when it comes to the book. I was talking about parents whose intuition about their child is oftentimes correct. Many people have an intuition that they are dying, and they usually are right, before any tests prove it, or they have an intuition that someone is out to hurt them, only to find out later that this person was a killer. Things like that. When it comes to the book, I can only say that empirical proof will come soon enough. In the meantime, I would hope that you would not give up on this work even if it's keeping the book in the back of your mind for later reference when more scientists have a chance to confirm its validity.

[Vivisectus]

Well, I certainly have learned something:

The Anti-vaxx movement and it's advocates seem to be closely allied to the health-woo merchants. Their screed is made up of equal parts chemical paranoia, good-old-days thinking, conspiracy theories and a predilection for emotive stories that offer a simple narrative framework in stead of confusing networks of interconnecting and often counter-intuitive facts. They prefer anecdotal stories to controlled tests, and indeed will ignore such tests if they go against what they feel is correct.

Scientific literature is never going to convince these people: by its very nature it is disinterested, unemotional, and often rather technical. Part of scientific training is to eliminate as best you can all possibilities of emotional bias, and because it needs to be so very specific about highly complex processes it needs a rather technical language that takes some time and effort to master. There is also the problem that in science, there just are no final answers. It is open-ended and only interested in what we can measure. If science teaches us anything it is not to seek an answer to our big naive questions. It is that we should learn to ask better questions.

By contrast, the anti-vaxxers embrace the narrative approach. Their story has powerful bad guys, plucky underdog good guys, persecuted innocents and a simple solution that would totally work if only there was not this huge conspiracy against them. In stead of dry facts they have emotive stories. They champion intuition, "natural health", a return to simpler times when everything made sense and we did not do all those newfangled things. It is an emotive appeal against an increasingly technical world where information is cheap, but understanding still comes at a premium.

And lets face it: it is an issue for rich white people. Anyone who needs to worry if their kids are going to be fed tomorrow and who would not be able to afford good healthcare if their kid got a bad case of measles is not likely to be very involved in this.

Sadly, it is the very success of modern medicine that has brought it to this pass: that a growing number of people have become so secure, and so far removed from the old realities, that they can afford to make a hobby out of objecting to the shape of the spoon the medicine comes in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

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.

No I'm not Spacemonkey. Where am I asking people to accept faith regarding the actual statistics? As far as a mother's intuition after she sees a major change in her child's behavior after a vaccine, yes, she should trust her intuition that the vaccine was the cause and not give that child another shot no matter what the doctors tell her.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Because you know that people will use it against me, just like in a court of law certain circumstantial situations make it appear that the person is guilty. People want me to admit that the moons of Jupiter is enough evidence to discredit Lessans' claim. If I can't give an alternate explanation that would explain this phenomenon, that would count as a strike against my father. That's crazy.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Like I said, in the early days of this thread showing ignorance on the topic of optics or physics would have immediately sent this book to the trash bin. I didn't want that to happen because it wouldn't have been a fair assessment.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

There is proof of a round earth; there is not proof of afferent vision even though scientists think proof has been established.

Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Because I can see where a false association can be made, which is unfair and could interfere with my chance of bringing this knowledge to light. Thank god I'm not depending on the people in this thread for anything, or it might take another century before this knowledge is recognized.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

This is the umpteenth time you've asked me this. I answered you already.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

People want to see how I do my research to determine if they can use it against me as it relates to my discernment of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

You would do the same thing Angakuk if you knew people were twisting your words, or going to use something against you unfairly. It has nothing to do with convenience or comfort at the expense of honesty. It has to do with motive, and people have been very quick to judge based on standards that have nothing to do with the knowledge being presented. People in this thread do this a lot. They judge a person based on his formal credentials which may not have any bearing on what he actually knows. Just like Lessans said: 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8 has nothing to do with where you went to school or what you happen to do for a living. They judge according to what side of an issue a person is on (an us against them mentality), and then feel justified calling him all kinds of names, which gives them a false sense of superiority. Can't you see why I had to weasel at times (I had no free choice in the matter ) due to the fact that I believed the questions, just like in an interrogation, were aimed at finding me guilty of willful ignorance so the book could be thrown out?

[Vivisectus]

10 ways to know sight is not efferent:

1: The moons of Jupiter
2: We hit things where we do not see them when we launch probes at distant objects such as mars or saturn.
3: Cameras and eyes show the same image when taking pictures of objects that are very far away, yet cameras only record light.
4: Starlight and seen stars show up in the same place, even though stars move and are so far away it takes years for the light to arrive
5: Mirrors only reflect light, and yet we see images
6: the common TV only reflects light, and yet images show up
7: simple tests to measure the speed of light using moving blades and the human eye work amazingly accurately.
8: Perspective. There is no reason for distant objects to appear smaller unless sight is the detection of travelling light.
9: The sunset. There is no reason for the sun to appear to change color, unless we detect light.
10: There is no known mechanic by which efferent sight could be imagined to work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

I can't help but laugh, you all have me so wrong.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

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

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.

I have posted so many studies, I can't help it if you refuse to read them.

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

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

No it doesn't, but of course you will fight me tooth and nail even when the pattern that is emerging tells a different story.

The Healthiest Children In The Future Will Be Unvaccinated – By Dave Mihalovic, Naturopathic Doctor
Posted on December 8, 2011 by The Refusers

Before It’s News, December 07, 2011

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment

The emerging generation of unvaccinated children will be among the healthiest in the world, and they’ll have their parents to thank. The refusal of significant numbers of parents to vaccinate their children has created a sizable population numbering in the millions around the world and has raised a number of important public health issues, namely why do we continue to vaccinate at all.

Unvaccinated children will never have dangerous, immune suppressing, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and infertility promoting chemicals pumped into their bodies. These include those chemicals that are found in almost every FDA approved vaccine.

According to Dr. Buchwald, “the reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realising that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated. The truth can be kept hidden if people’s vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible. This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible.”

“I have not seen autism with the Amish,” said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century. “You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.”

More educated parents are less likely to vaccinate, which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don’t vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed.

More encouraging for anti-vaccine advocates is the finding that highly educated parents also reduced their uptake of other non-controversial childhood vaccines, a good sign that most of the hidden toxins in vaccines are slowly being discovered by parents and the public in general.

According to historical charts, graphs and two centuries of official statistics, we know that vaccines have never prevented any diseases and are in no way responsible for improving life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies. In North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, major declines in life-threatening infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far in advance of public vaccination efforts for specific diseases.

In a just-published shocking study virology researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands have demonstrated that a regular flu vaccine in children actually worsens a key aspect of their flu-fighting immune system. This research was not conducted by vaccine-disliking scientists. Rather, it was conducted by pro-vaccine researchers who have spent their careers trying to develop better vaccines. Lead author Rogier Bodewes delivered the sobering message as he explained that flu vaccines “have potential drawbacks that have previously been under appreciated and that are also a matter of debate.”

It involved highly advanced scientific evaluation of the immune system. The researchers collected blood from 27 healthy, unvaccinated children with an average age of 6 years old, and 14 children with cystic fibrosis who received an annual flu shot. The unvaccinated children were found to have a superior immune response, giving them broader protection against what they might face in an actual flu season, including pandemic strains.

We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines…….Every doctor now essentially in this country has done something as heinous as the Nazis did, unknowingly,” stated Dr. Mayer Eisenstein.

According to [2011 Aug] State of health of unvaccinated children: Illnesses in unvaccinated children, the results show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases.

Asthma, hayfever and neurodermatitis…..A recent German study with 17461 children between 0-17 years of age (KIGGS) showed that 4.7% of these children suffer from asthma, 10.7% of these children from hayfever and 13.2% from neurodermatitis. These numbers differ in western countries, i.e. the prevalence of asthma among children in the US is 6% whereas it is 14-16% in Australia (Australia’s Health 2004, AIHW). The prevalence of asthma among unvaccinated children in our study is 0.2%, hayfever 1.5% and neurodermatitis 2%.

According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested (20 common allergens were tested) and 22.9% had an allergic disease. Although we did not perform a bloodtest, less than 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

There are also autism cases in unvaccinated children. However over 80% stated, that it is only a mild form or a high functioning form of autism. Among all participants there were 4 severe autism cases. Of these 4 children one tested very high for metals (mercury, aluminum, arsenic), in another case the mother was tested very high for mercury.

KIGGS showed that 12.8% of the children in Germany had herpes and 11% suffer from otitis media (an inflammation of the middle ear). If you compare this to unvaccinated childen you can see that herpes among unvaccinated children is very rare (less than 0.5%).

In young kids under the age of 3 warts are very rare. After the 3 years of age, however, the prevalence is rising. In the ages between 4 and 6 years, 5-10% of the kids have warts, in the age group 16-18, 15-20% have warts. (Source: netdoktor.at). Only 3% of unvaccinated children in our survey have warts.

“I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more robust than their vaccinated peers. Allergies, asthma and pallor and behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand, did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled these challenges very well.”–Incao’s Hepatitis B Vaccination Testimony

Unvaccinated kids are five times less likely to have asthma than the vaccinated, 2.5 times less likely to have skin problems and 8 times less likely to be hyperactive.

Vaccinated children are up to 14 times more likely to have asthma than the unvaccinated and up to nine times more like to have skin problems.

The long-term question which vaccine advocates persist in asking is what will the general health of this unvaccinated population be like? Well, from what we can deduce from the data so far, there is a strong indication that unvaccinated children will likely make up the healthiest populations in the world someday. Thank you Mom, Dad and every researcher and journalist who is exposing vaccines for what they really are.

The Healthiest Children In The Future Will Be Unvaccinated – By Dave Mihalovic, Naturopathic Doctor | The Refusers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK's Welsh Fake Measles Epidmenic

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...sles-epidemic/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Adams, Autism & Chelation on Dateline NBC pt 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...r4l12veI#t=186
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to be cont. (hopefully)

[Vivisectus]

I have posted so many studies, I can't help it if you refuse to read them.

They were all easily debunked.

As for the article you posted, it is (once again) full of unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate use of anecdotal evidence, emotive language, and plain old untruths. Would you like to go through them one by one? I have had no rpoblem debunking anything else you posted. You seem to never respond to those debunkings though, and you just move on.

If I thoroughly and completely demolish this particular article piece by piece, starting with his claim to be a doctor, will you promise to never, ever whinge again about how no-one reads what you post ever again? Because frankly, it does not seem to be worth my time: it never seems to even register.