A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe we should all take a break from this thread. It might do us all good.

If you don't want to post here or even read any of the posts here you don't have to. Remember, no one can force you to do anything you do not want to do. Over this you have complete control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would do the same thing Angakuk...

Lesley Gore - It's My Party (1965) - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you don't want to post here or even read any of the posts here you don't have to. Remember, no one can force you to do anything you do not want to do. Over this you have complete control.

Very true. I'm glad you learned something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the memories.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Whether they do their own studies or criticize other people's studies makes no difference if the interpretation is correct.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

They probably are right in their estimation that vaccines are an aggravating factor that provides the final straw. And even if it is a combination of factors that lead to these common chronic conditions, as long as vaccines play a part it behooves parents to do their own research and learn as much as they can about this complex issue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread. Why should I? I haven't done anything wrong other than weasel out of tight situations for reasons I've already explained. I do look in the mirror often and evaluate my behavior to make sure I live up to the standards I have set for myself. If I think something needs changing, I change it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I didn't ask you about any of this. I was simply pointing out the difference between the behaviour you were talking about and the behaviour we were actually asking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

You already told me that there were. Those are your own words just above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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...

Right. So you refuse to answer questions when doing so would reveal your father to have been wrong. Got it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You can't distinguish between light that travels and any other kind of light, because ALL light travels, as you have yourself agreed. This is yet another of those irreconcilable contradictions which you have both acknowledged and denied to exist. All the evidence opposes him, none of it supports him, and you can't explain his claims without contradiction. All of this is perfectly true, and it is as strong as an opposing case can ever possibly get.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You've explicitly stated that we should trust intuition over evidence, stating that the later can be unreliable (while ignoring that intuition is also unreliable, and even more so). So when should we trust intuition over actual evidence and when should we not? By your responses it would seem you think we should trust intuition whenever the evidence doesn't appear to support what we really want to believe. Can you offer better criteria for when we should trust intuition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

True, our less than proud moments are caught on tape for all to see.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread. Why should I? I haven't done anything wrong other than weasel out of tight situations for reasons I've already explained. I do look in the mirror often and evaluate my behavior to make sure I live up to the standards I have set for myself. If I think something needs changing, I change it.

Your answer is contradictory. You said before that you have made efforts to change your behaviour. You say here that haven't succeeded in doing so. That means you have tried and failed to change your behaviour. But then you go on to say that if you think your behaviour needs changing then you do change it.

So which is it? Let's break this down for clarity:

1) Have you identified any behaviour of yours in this thread that you thought needs changing?
2) Have you tried to change any of those behaviours?
3) Have you succeeded in changing any of your behaviours in this thread?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've lost you. What behavior am I displaying that compels you to harp on this time and again?

There are apparent contradictions if you are coming from the afferent perspective, but that alone doesn't mean his claim is wrong. It is true that one account of vision must be right and the other wrong. They both can't be right.

This has nothing to do with him being wrong because I don't believe his observations were wrong. I have no desire to be interrogated when the questions are one-sided and have no bearing on the validity of his claim. To ever find out if he is right, there has to be an interest. If there is an interest, the experiments done have to be reliable. Hopefully, further testing will help to determine once and for all who is right.

You can't distinguish between light that travels and any other kind of light, because ALL light travels, as you have yourself agreed. This is yet another of those irreconcilable contradictions which you have both acknowledged and denied to exist. All the evidence opposes him, none of it supports him, and you can't explain his claims without contradiction. All of this is perfectly true, and it is as strong as an opposing case can ever possibly get.

So why do you keep coming back to this thread? If you don't think there's anything worth investigating, you should be doing other things. Do you still enjoy lego? How is your professorship coming? I'm sure you have a lot of things to do other than visit one little thread on one little corner of the internet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've explicitly stated that we should trust intuition over evidence, stating that the later can be unreliable (while ignoring that intuition is also unreliable, and even more so). So when should we trust intuition over actual evidence and when should we not? By your responses it would seem you think we should trust intuition whenever the evidence doesn't appear to support what we really want to believe. Can you offer better criteria for when we should trust intuition?

Intuition does not come into play with this book. His knowledge was not based on intuition. It was based on astute observation and sound reasoning. I only brought intuition up with regard to mothers, who have very good intuition when it comes to their children.

[Dragar]

Meanwhile in the real world, High Court orders two sisters must receive MMR vaccine. I suppose the High Court is just another part of the conspiracy, right peacegirl? Or they're fooled by the scientists and their oh-so-misleading, peer-reviewed, well designed empirical studies?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread. Why should I? I haven't done anything wrong other than weasel out of tight situations for reasons I've already explained. I do look in the mirror often and evaluate my behavior to make sure I live up to the standards I have set for myself. If I think something needs changing, I change it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer is contradictory. You said before that you have made efforts to change your behaviour. You say here that haven't succeeded in doing so.

I never said that Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That means you have tried and failed to change your behaviour. But then you go on to say that if you think your behaviour needs changing then you do change it.

Where did I ever say that I failed to change my behavior if I thought it needed changing?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So which is it? Let's break this down for clarity:

1) Have you identified any behaviour of yours in this thread that you thought needs changing?

No

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Have you tried to change any of those behaviours?

No, because I never identified behaviors that need changing in this thread. What are you referring to, weaseling?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3) Have you succeeded in changing any of your behaviours in this thread?

As I have said and am now reiterating, I don't see behaviors that need changing. The kinds of questions that were asked early on were for the purpose of revealing my ignorance of certain subjects for the sole purpose of discrediting this discovery. And that's what is still going on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[silence]

You didn't answer this bit, Peacegirl. Yet it was the most important part of my post. Has your dishonest weaseling actually worked?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not Spacemonkey.

Yes, you are. You have blatantly made things up that you cannot support (such as children being sicker and weaker now than in the past, or seatbelts causing harm less often than vaccines), you have weaseled out of answering direct questions concerning your own claims (such as whether autism rates have gone up or down since the removal of mercury from vaccines), and you have explicitly claimed that we should sometimes follow intuition over actual evidence. These are the very same kinds of behaviours you engaged in when discussing the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You haven't answered any of the questions you just responded to. But why is it crazy to count it as a strike against your father that there are phenomena explainable on the standard account that his alternative account cannot explain at all? Why shouldn't that count against him?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You still haven't answered what I just asked. You are weaseling here in a discussion of your own weaseling. If you answer a question and get things wrong, then yes, people may conclude (quote correctly) that you don't know what you're talking about. But when you lie, weasel, and evade people will conclude that you don't know what you are talking about and also that you are not an honest person. So which strategy is better?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

There is not absolutely conclusive proof for a round Earth of the sort you demand for disproving Lessans claims. After all, it is always possible that something else may be going on. And you haven't answered the question her either. If you think our standards are questionable, then you need to tell us what standards you think we should be using instead. So far we are using the same standards of evidence and rationality that we use for everything else. Do you think we should make an exception for your father's work? Do you think we should trust in faith and intuition instead of the preponderance of evidence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Yes, I have asked this a few times. But no, you have not yet answered it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

And so far it seems that they can, as your 'research' has consisted of nothing more than scouring the internet for sources which appear to support what you already believe and want to keep believing, which you then cut and paste without having made the slightest effort to verify or critically analyze.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Meanwhile in the real world, High Court orders two sisters must receive MMR vaccine. I suppose the High Court is just another part of the conspiracy, right peacegirl? Or they're fooled by the scientists and their oh-so-misleading, peer-reviewed, well designed empirical studies?

Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. In the new world no doctor, court, or any other institution would ever justify forcing a vaccine on a child against the parent's wishes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've lost you. What behavior am I displaying that compels you to harp on this time and again?

Weaseling. It is fundamentally dishonest and makes you look ridiculous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are apparent contradictions if you are coming from the afferent perspective, but that alone doesn't mean his claim is wrong. It is true that one account of vision must be right and the other wrong. They both can't be right.

Are these apparent contradictions ones you can reconcile? Or are they irreconcilable contradictions? (And the contradictions we are talking about are not between the two accounts but within your own.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with him being wrong because I don't believe his observations were wrong.

And yet you just finished telling me that you deliberately evade questions when you know that answering them will make Lessans look wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why do you keep coming back to this thread? If you don't think there's anything worth investigating, you should be doing other things.

You are worth investigating.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you still enjoy lego?

Yes. We recently organized and held a national Lego show which dew in 20,000 visitors and raised over $15,000 for charity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is your professorship coming?

I'm not working on any professorship. I never was.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intuition does not come into play with this book. His knowledge was not based on intuition. It was based on astute observation and sound reasoning.

Yes, it is faith rather than intuition which you constantly fall back on with the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't answer this bit, Peacegirl. Yet it was the most important part of my post. Has your dishonest weaseling actually worked?

I don't know. I might not have lasted as long as I have if I hadn't weaseled in the beginning. I don't think I weasel anymore, although you might think I do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are. You have blatantly made things up that you cannot support (such as children being sicker and weaker now than in the past, or seatbelts causing harm less often than vaccines), you have weaseled out of answering direct questions concerning your own claims (such as whether autism rates have gone up or down since the removal of mercury from vaccines), and you have explicitly claimed that we should sometimes follow intuition over actual evidence. These are the very same kinds of behaviours you engaged in when discussing the book.

Spacemonkey, I have answered most of the questions regarding vaccines. I have found supporting evidence that shows there is a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism in some children. I have found reports saying that Andrew Wakefield's research was confirmed. I have read reports where children were observed as being less robust after mass vaccinations. I don't know all the answers and I don't claim to, but as a parent the vaccine schedule that is now up to 36 doses before age 2 and starting in infancy is disturbing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Spacemonkey

You haven't answered any of the questions you just responded to. But why is it crazy to count it as a strike against your father that there are phenomena explainable on the standard account that his alternative account cannot explain at all? Why shouldn't that count against him?

Because appearances are not always correct. What appears to be true isn't always true, especially when someone sees something from a different perspective that was never considered.

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 Spacemonkey

You still haven't answered what I just asked. You are weaseling here in a discussion of your own weaseling. If you answer a question and get things wrong, then yes, people may conclude (quote correctly) that you don't know what you're talking about. But when you lie, weasel, and evade people will conclude that you don't know what you are talking about and also that you are not an honest person. So which strategy is better?

I'm really not sure. I really hate to think that people would use the fact that my father wasn't an astronomer as some kind of proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, and by proxy, me as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is not absolutely conclusive proof for a round Earth of the sort you demand for disproving Lessans claims. After all, it is always possible that something else may be going on.

Nope, it is pretty conclusive that the earth is round. The flat earthers have not proved their theory. All they are doing is making assertions. I believe more experiments will prove that my father was correct. Obviously, if it can't be empirically tested, then his claim will never be confirmed or denied.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you haven't answered the question her either. If you think our standards are questionable, then you need to tell us what standards you think we should be using instead. So far we are using the same standards of evidence and rationality that we use for everything else. Do you think we should make an exception for your father's work? Do you think we should trust in faith and intuition instead of the preponderance of evidence?

Of course not. Evidence is crucial, but you are discounting his evidence because he didn't use the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, data collection and reaching a conclusion. This is where a tremendous roadblock exists and I don't know how to clear it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I have asked this a few times. But no, you have not yet answered it.

Yes I did. I don't know how it would have turned out. Maybe people would have thought I was a troll and that would have been the end of the thread. Maybe that would have been a good thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And so far it seems that they can, as your 'research' has consisted of nothing more than scouring the internet for sources which appear to support what you already believe and want to keep believing, which you then cut and paste without having made the slightest effort to verify or critically analyze.

That is not true Spacemonkey; how can you say that in all honesty? I have learned a lot from this research, so even if no one in here does my efforts have not been for naught. I doubt if you have been following the research that I have posted.

We don't know enough about childhood vaccines
Researcher asks: Are 36 doses of vaccine by age 2 too much, too little, or just right?
July 11, 2011|By Margaret Dunkle

The topics of vaccines and vaccine safety spark emotional outbursts at scientific meetings and family dinner tables alike. But many of these debates are remarkably fact-free. Surprisingly few people — not just concerned parents but also doctors, policymakers and even immunization experts — can answer this seemingly simple question: How many immunizations does the federal government recommend for every child during the first two years of life?

The answer is important because most states, including Maryland, faithfully follow the recommendations of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, codifying CDC guidelines into requirements for children to enroll in school, kindergarten, preschool and child care.

A new Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health study reports that the higher the proportion of infants and toddlers receiving recommended vaccines, the higher the state's rate of children diagnosed with autism or speech-language problems just a few years later. This analysis is sure to rekindle the debate about vaccine safety.

For that conversation to produce useful results, we must start by defining terms. A "dose of vaccine" refers to each vaccine or antigen given to increase immunity against one specific disease. For chicken pox, a child receives one dose of vaccine through one shot.

By contrast, an "immunization event" refers to each separate administration of a vaccine or bundle of vaccines — through a shot, orally, or nasally. The MMR shot for mumps, measles and rubella involves three doses of vaccine but is one immunization event.

The critical number is how many doses of vaccine a child receives. Why? If a vaccine is strong enough to confer immunity against a disease, it is important enough to count separately.

Clear definitions, analysis of CDC's "General Recommendations on Immunization," and confirmation by Dr. Andrew Kroger, lead author of the definitive report on these recommendations, produce the answer to the not-so-simple-after-all question posed above.

In all, the federal government recommends 36 doses of vaccine, addressing 14 different diseases, for every U.S. child under age 2. An on-schedule child will receive a dose of vaccine for hepatitis B at birth, eight doses of various vaccines at 2 months, seven additional doses at 4 months, and four to seven more doses at 6 months.

Infants and toddlers receive these vaccine doses through 26 separate immunization events — mostly shots. If a child misses vaccinations because of illness or scheduling problems, following CDC's catch-up schedule usually results in extra doses at a later date.

The federally recommended doses of vaccine for every child during the first two years of life are: three doses each for hepatitis B, polio, flu, and HIB (12 doses in all); two doses each for hepatitis A and rotavirus; four doses for pneumococcal infections; one dose for chicken pox; three doses through the combination MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella; and 12 doses through four separate administrations of the combination DTaP vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough).

Some infants and toddlers receive still more doses of vaccine — if they switch to pediatricians who use different "combined" vaccines, if they are at high risk for certain diseases, if lost or incomplete records lead to duplicate immunizations, and depending on the time of year they were born (for flu shots) or the brand of vaccine used.

While testing is routine for individual vaccines as they are licensed, research on the both short- and long-term effects of multiple doses of vaccine administered to very young children during the critical birth-to-2 developmental window is sparse to nonexistent.

In addition to the number of doses, vaccine ingredients can be problematic, especially for susceptible subgroups. First are adjuvants, substances added to boost effectiveness and allow smaller doses of vaccine antigen to be used. The most common adjuvant is aluminum, which is found in vaccines for hepatitis and diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus.

Second are preservatives — such as thimerosal, which is 49.6 percent mercury. Thimerosal is still contained in many flu shots, although it was, except for trace amounts, removed from other child vaccines a decade ago. Many child vaccines (including those for diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, HIB, and hepatitis) contain formaldehyde, which was just added to the government's list of known human carcinogens.

Third are ingredients to which some people have severe allergies: stabilizers such as gelatin, and eggs or other proteins that are used to prepare vaccines for flu, MMR, and other immunizations.

The ongoing debate about vaccines and their safety needs to incorporate these basic facts as our country seeks to answer the critical Goldilocks question: Too many? Too few? Or just right?

Margaret Dunkle is senior research scientist at the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University and director of the Early Identification and Intervention Collaborative for Los Angeles County. She also has a family member who is vaccine-injured. Her email is mdunkle@gwu.edu.

Childhood vaccine safety: We need more facts to determine whether vaccines are excessive - Baltimore Sun

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that Spacemonkey.

But you did.

Here is where you say that you have made efforts to change your behaviour: "Do you ever look in the mirror at yourself and make efforts to change your behavior? I do."

Here is where you say that you have not succeeded: "I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I ever say that I failed to change my behavior if I thought it needed changing?

In the above two quotes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No

Then please explain what you meant when you said: "Do you ever look in the mirror at yourself and make efforts to change your behavior? I do."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because I never identified behaviors that need changing in this thread. What are you referring to, weaseling?

Yes. Weaseling (along with lying, evading, and making things up) is a dishonest practice that you should attempt to change. Instead all you do is attempt to rationalize and justify this behaviour.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The kinds of questions that were asked early on were for the purpose of revealing my ignorance of certain subjects for the sole purpose of discrediting this discovery.

And they have succeeded in that. The only effect of your dishonest weaseling and evasion has been to additionally show that you lack any kind of intellectual integrity, as you will happily lie and evade whenever you think it suits your purposes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you did.

I thought I said that I look in the mirror often and will change things that I believe need adjustments. I was not referring to this thread.

Here is where you say that you have not succeeded: "I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread."

I didn't say I haven't succeeded. I said I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread because I haven't tried to. I already explained that to you. Why are you misinterpreting everything I say?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I ever say that I failed to change my behavior if I thought it needed changing?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In the above two quotes.

No, those two quotes had different meanings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then please explain what you meant when you said: "Do you ever look in the mirror at yourself and make efforts to change your behavior? I do."

Oh my goodness, is this a broken record or what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because I never identified behaviors that need changing in this thread. What are you referring to, weaseling?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. Weaseling (along with lying, evading, and making things up) is a dishonest practice that you should attempt to change. Instead all you do is attempt to rationalize and justify this behaviour.

And I said I'm trying. The weaseling you were accusing me of regarding my research is not weaseling at all. I am searching for the studies by professionals in the field of toxicology, biochemistry and the like that prove vaccines are not as safe as people would like to believe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The kinds of questions that were asked early on were for the purpose of revealing my ignorance of certain subjects for the sole purpose of discrediting this discovery.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And they have succeeded in that. The only effect of your dishonest weaseling and evasion has been to additionally show that you lack any kind of intellectual integrity, as you will happily lie and evade whenever you think it suits your purposes.

Not really. If I don't have a valid refutation that I believe supports my argument, I will admit it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know. I might not have lasted as long as I have if I hadn't weaseled in the beginning. I don't think I weasel anymore, although you might think I do.

So lets' summarize: You say you have weaseled in the past, but that you don't weasel any more, i.e. you are making a point of (allegedly) no longer engaging in this kind of behaviour. Yet you also say that you haven't made any attempt to change your behaviour in this thread, or identified any behaviour that you think you should change. How does that work?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I have answered most of the questions regarding vaccines. I have found supporting evidence that shows there is a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism in some children. I have found reports saying that Andrew Wakefield's research was confirmed. I have read reports where children were observed as being less robust after mass vaccinations. I don't know all the answers and I don't claim to, but as a parent the vaccine schedule that is now up to 36 doses before age 2 and starting in infancy is disturbing.

Non sequitur. Even if all of this were true, you have still made things up, weaseled out of answering questions, and dismissed evidence in favour of intuition. Just like I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because appearances are not always correct. What appears to be true isn't always true, especially when someone sees something from a different perspective that was never considered.

So what? How does this show that we should not count it as evidence against Lessans that there are things his account can't explain which our account can? If it were the other away around - with Lessans being able to explain phenomena that the afferent account could not explain, would you recommend that we all ignore this and deny it as evidence in his favour just because "apearances are not always correct"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not sure. I really hate to think that people would use the fact that my father wasn't an astronomer as some kind of proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, and by proxy, me as well.

They don't. They use the fact that he made claims which any competent astronomer knows for a fact to be wrong, as evidence that he did not know what he was talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, it is pretty conclusive that the earth is round. The flat earthers have not proved their theory. All they are doing is making assertions. I believe more experiments will prove that my father was correct. Obviously, if it can't be empirically tested, then his claim will never be confirmed or denied.

It's also pretty conclusive that vision is afferent and delayed. Lessans certainly hasn't proved his theory, though he sure makes several assertions. Why isn't it possible that the Earth is flat and something else is going on that merely makes it seem round? After all, you seem to think that an unexplained "something else might be going on there" is enough to make evidence against efferent vision less than conclusive. The evidence in both cases is just as strong, and in neither case is it absolutely conclusive beyond any remote possibility of error.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. Evidence is crucial, but you are discounting his evidence because he didn't use the scientific method...

No, I dismiss his unsupported claims because he has no evidence at all. I am not discounting his evidence, as he doesn't have any for us to discount.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I did. I don't know how it would have turned out. Maybe people would have thought I was a troll and that would have been the end of the thread.

You think people would have been more likely to view you as a troll if you had honestly admitted to not knowing things instead of constantly weaseling and evading questions? Do you really think the thread could not have continued if you'd been honest instead of trying (rather transparently) to hide your ignorance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Spacemonkey; how can you say that in all honesty? I have learned a lot from this research, so even if no one in here does my efforts have not been for naught. I doubt if you have been following the research that I have posted.

What I said was perfectly true, and you have just confirmed it again by cutting and pasting yet another source that you hope supports what you already believe and which you have no doubt made no attempt whatsoever to verify for accuracy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought I said that I look in the mirror often and will change things that I believe need adjustments. I was not referring to this thread.

Ah, so when you responded to LadyShea complaining about her behaviour in this thread and asking her if she ever looks herself in the mirror and attempts to change her behaviour, and then saying that you do do so, you meant only that you do this outside of the thread and not in it? Is that what you meant? Why don't you look at yourself in a mirror with respect to this thread as well? You really should.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I haven't succeeded. I said I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread because I haven't tried to.

Why not? Your behaviour has been absolutely attrocious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said I'm trying.

Ah, no. You just finished explicitly telling me that you have not been trying in any way to change your behaviour in this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am searching for the studies by professionals in the field of toxicology, biochemistry and the like that prove vaccines are not as safe as people would like to believe.

Exactly. You are searching for evidence to support what you already believe instead of making any effort to look at both sides equally and fairly. And when you find something, you cut and paste it into the thread without having made any attempt to analyze or verify what it claims. This is not research.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really. If I don't have a valid refutation that I believe supports my argument, I will admit it.

I don't know how this is meant to relate to what I said. Your weaseling (past and/or present) does not actually hide your ignorance. It only makes you look dishonest in addition to being ignorant. It is not a good strategy. It is something you should be actively trying to change instead of rationalizing and defending it.

[peacegirl]

Thought provoking videos:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

I was crying while uploading this video_and i m...

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. In the new world no doctor, court, or any other institution would ever justify forcing a vaccine on a child against the parent's wishes.

Politically motivated? You think, what, the judge is running for office next or something? That he made that ruling to annoy people with the Conservative party?

Do you even know what you're writing?

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the safety of the rest of the population, bad science and lies (the ones you are perpetuating) are ignored and overruled when they threaten the safety of so many.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Politically motivated?

In addition, I'm pretty sure Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England is responsible for perpetuating the Holocaust myth and the moon landing hoax.

Personally, I think it's the powdered wigs. It is an undeniably astute observation that wearing powdered wigs makes you oblivious to parents' rights.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In addition, I'm pretty sure Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England is responsible for perpetuating the Holocaust myth and the moon landing hoax.

Personally, I think it's the powdered wigs. It is an undeniably astute observation that wearing powdered wigs makes you oblivious to parents' rights.

Yeah, they spend so much time powering their wigs, and the the resultant dust cloud obscures their vision so that they can't see the real world.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. In the new world no doctor, court, or any other institution would ever justify forcing a vaccine on a child against the parent's wishes.

I agree with peacegirl here. As a parent it is my right to hire out my minor children to work in the collieries or brothels and no court, however high, has the right to interfere with the choices I make for my children.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread. Why should I? I haven't done anything wrong other than weasel out of tight situations for reasons I've already explained. I do look in the mirror often and evaluate my behavior to make sure I live up to the standards I have set for myself. If I think something needs changing, I change it.

There is the lying though. But I am glad you admit that you Weasel for the Cause: that you are dishonest because you put your beliefs before facts is something we have been trying to get you to see for years.