A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added to previous post:

You continue to accuse everyone who is an anti-vaxer as being fraudulent. You say there is evidence mounting that vaccines are safe. Oh really?

Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism

Why not take a read and see how many are fraudalent junk papers, hm?

For example, #10:

This is the infamous Poling paper, which was published without Poling's disclosure of conflict of interest.

Uh-oh, what did he do?

It is simply incredible that a doctor who convenes a press conference to announce the favorable outcome of his child’s legal case, and internationally broadcasts her photograph and story — including in a two-page spread in People Magazine — would suggest that he sought to “protect” her by failing to disclose his relevant personal relationship and financial interests in a report submitted to a specialist scientific journal.

That sounds pretty bad! But at least there was no money involved, right?

Equally incredible is his suggestion that he should be excused for his failure to disclose an unquestionably relevant legal claim — a claim with a potential value exceeding $1 million — because it had not yet reached the hearing stage, and because his attorney was navigating the slowly-moving procedural waters for him.

Aw, crap.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say there is evidence mounting that vaccines are safe. Oh really?

Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism

So what steps have you taken to verify these studies for accuracy?

[LadyShea]

The alleged "proof" regarding aluminum found in the journal Entropy in 2012* was not a study at all. They searched the VAERS database for keywords. Do you understand the significance of that, peacegirl?

This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. Entropy | Free Full-Text | Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure

*This was mentioned in the article but not properly cited. How do they expect people to do their own research if they don't offer citations such as the name of the study and the date of publication? I know how to look this stuff up, but not everyone does.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is at the retina and film already. There is no travel time. It is not magic; it only appears that way if you don't understand why the brain using the eye as a window to the external world allows this phenomenon of real time vision to occur.

You are still conceptualizing that light is the conveyer of the image. It is not. It is a condition only, which changes the function of light in terms of what it does. We do not interpret the light. Light reveals what exists out there.

This has nothing to do with magic or invisible friends or unicorns.

Why are we into this debate again. I really don't want to get involved because there will be no reconciliation not because Lessans was wrong, but because people are misunderstanding how this model works and why it works.

Nope, it's your lack of understanding since traveling light cannot, in and of itself, bring an image to the eye or film through space/time (or distance). The object must be present.

It is not necessary to discuss where light is located if the role of light turns out to reveal the world to us, not bring the world to us.

This model does not violate this law of physics because Lessans never denied that light travels and must be at the object for it to be seen, therefore if light has not reached Earth, we won't be able to see each other because the conditions for sight have not been met.

You are still positing light somewhere without being able to explain where it came from or how it got there. This problem has nothing at all to do with whether or not light is bringing an image. I find it very hard to believe that you could actually be so stupid as to still not even understand the problem (and I'm prepared to grant you very high level of stupidity).

When the Sun is first ignited at 12:00, and there is supposedly light at the retina on Earth, where did that light come from? If it came from the Sun, then when was it located there?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. The light is at the retina and film already.
2. There is no travel time.
3. It is not magic;
4. it only appears that way if you don't understand why the brain using the eye as a window to the external world allows this phenomenon of real time vision to occur.

1. How did it get there?
2. If not by traveling, how did the light become present on the surface of camera film?
3. Until you can answer 1 and 2, it is indeed magic
4. I certainly can't understand what the brain using the eyes as windows has to do with light photons coming to be located on the surface of camera film without any physically possible mechanism for coming to be at that location.

You are still conceptualizing that light is the conveyer of the image. It is not. It is a condition only, which changes the function of light in terms of what it does. We do not interpret the light. Light reveals what exists out there.

I am not talking about images or even seeing.

I am asking only about the light itself being located somewhere, in this case "at the film". It had to get there somehow. How?

[quote]

Again you don't even realize it but you are coming from the afferent perspective which means that you are still imaging that time is a factor. It is not in this account. That is why this model of sight does not violate the laws of physics.

It does violate physics though, because you cannot even begin to explain how light is located somewhere it has not traveled to while remaining within the laws of physics.

Why are we into this debate again. I really don't want to get involved because there will be no reconciliation not because Lessans was wrong, but because people are misunderstanding how this model works and why it works.

Because you can't offer any mechanism that makes it possible to work

Nope, it's your lack of understanding since traveling light cannot, in and of itself, bring an image to the eye or film through space/time (or distance). The object must be present.

Irrelevant.

I am asking about the light you have said is physically located on the surface of camera film before any light photons are on Earth. How did it get there?

It is not necessary to discuss where light is located if the role of light turns out to reveal the world to us, not bring the world to us.

It makes your account impossible ie: magic

[Vivisectus]

Man I am so out of touch sometimes. I never knew Jenny McCarthy's kid never had autism in the first place, but Landau-Klefner syndrome, which is something completely different, more like a rare form of epilepsy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why not take a read and see how many are fraudalent junk papers, hm?

For example, #10:

This is the infamous Poling paper, which was published without Poling's disclosure of conflict of interest.

Just because it was his child does not mean he had a conflicting interest and that he was out to exploit his own daughter. That's crazy.

It is simply incredible that a doctor who convenes a press conference to announce the favorable outcome of his child’s legal case, and internationally broadcasts her photograph and story — including in a two-page spread in People Magazine — would suggest that he sought to “protect” her by failing to disclose his relevant personal relationship and financial interests in a report submitted to a specialist scientific journal.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That sounds pretty bad! But at least there was no money involved, right?

There was money involved, but so what? That doesn't mean that was his motive. I'll guarantee you that if he could get his healthy child back, he would happily give back the money.

Equally incredible is his suggestion that he should be excused for his failure to disclose an unquestionably relevant legal claim — a claim with a potential value exceeding $1 million — because it had not yet reached the hearing stage, and because his attorney was navigating the slowly-moving procedural waters for him.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Aw, crap.

You have no rebuttal, so your "aw, crap" is no better than my "aw, shit".

[Adam]

"Because the Queen can sway public opinion" is quite possibly my favorite conspiracy theorist get out of jail free card.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. The light is at the retina and film already.
2. There is no travel time.
3. It is not magic;
4. it only appears that way if you don't understand why the brain using the eye as a window to the external world allows this phenomenon of real time vision to occur.

1. How did it get there?
2. If not by traveling, how did the light become present on the surface of camera film?
3. Until you can answer 1 and 2, it is indeed magic
4. I certainly can't understand what the brain using the eyes as windows has to do with light photons coming to be located on the surface of camera film without any physically possible mechanism for coming to be at that location.

You are still conceptualizing that light is the conveyer of the image. It is not. It is a condition only, which changes the function of light in terms of what it does. We do not interpret the light. Light reveals what exists out there.

I am not talking about images or even seeing.

I am asking only about the light itself being located somewhere, in this case "at the film". It had to get there somehow. How?

It does violate physics though, because you cannot even begin to explain how light is located somewhere it has not traveled to while remaining within the laws of physics.

Because you can't offer any mechanism that makes it possible to work

Irrelevant.

I am asking about the light you have said is physically located on the surface of camera film before any light photons are on Earth. How did it get there?

It makes your account impossible ie: magic

You are missing an essential element that makes this model anything but magic. I will not fight you on this because it's like fighting a flat earther. I am done discussing this topic. I have no idea how this conversation started up again, and I'm not going to add to it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

"Because the Queen can sway public opinion" is quite possibly my favorite conspiracy theorist get out of jail free card.

Maybe so. Public opinion is the trump card that could do just that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still positing light somewhere without being able to explain where it came from or how it got there. This problem has nothing at all to do with whether or not light is bringing an image. I find it very hard to believe that you could actually be so stupid as to still not even understand the problem (and I'm prepared to grant you very high level of stupidity).

When the Sun is first ignited at 12:00, and there is supposedly light at the retina on Earth, where did that light come from? If it came from the Sun, then when was it located there?

All I can say is "UNBELIEVABLE". I will leave it at that. Who grants whom on the level of stupidity is up for grabs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The alleged "proof" regarding aluminum found in the journal Entropy in 2012* was not a study at all. They searched the VAERS database for keywords. Do you understand the significance of that, peacegirl?

*This was mentioned in the article but not properly cited. How do they expect people to do their own research if they don't offer citations such as the name of the study and the date of publication? I know how to look this stuff up, but not everyone does.

I believe a hunch should be taken seriously, especially when there is corroborating evidence that all is not well with vaccines. Are you willing to risk the health of millions of children by saying they have no proof, and all they have is a guess? Are you willing to bypass common sense in favor of a study saying vaccines are safe which DID NOT prove their case conclusively? Are you willing to stand before Congress in the face of parents who saw their children decline, and say it's fine for children to be vaccinated because there is no link? If you can do that, then I commend you. I could not do that in all honesty because I have to admit to myself that I really don't know. It's shocking to me that your overconfidence cannot do the same.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1161286]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. How did it get there?
2. If not by traveling, how did the light become present on the surface of camera film?
3. Until you can answer 1 and 2, it is indeed magic
4. I certainly can't understand what the brain using the eyes as windows has to do with light photons coming to be located on the surface of camera film without any physically possible mechanism for coming to be at that location.

I am not talking about images or even seeing.

I am asking only about the light itself being located somewhere, in this case "at the film". It had to get there somehow. How?

Your thinking is in line with LadyShea's. You are missing an essential element that makes this model not magic at all. I will not fight you on this because it's like fighting a flat earther. I am done discussing this topic. I have no idea how this conversation started up again, and I'm not going to add to it.

Uh, I am LadyShea. Who did you think wrote the post?

[LadyShea]

I believe a hunch should be taken seriously, especially when there is corroborating evidence that all is not well with vaccines.

LOLL, so much for your assertion that you are trying to verify the "studies" you are posting for accuracy. You just believe whatever makes you feel more satisfied to believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh, I am LadyShea. Who did you think wrote the post?

Sorry about that. I thought it was Spacemonkey talking. The thread goes so fast that I sometimes get the poster wrong. Hopefully you won't use this honest mistake against me as you are known to do.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does it matter if he was informed or not. If there was a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter if Poling disclosed his agenda.

What? You're making zero sense.

Your anger is disproportionate. This tells me there's more to your anger than a disagreement with the studies.

What anger?

Sort of, but you never know what comes after the conference. Could it be money?

Whuh? Do you even understand sarcasm?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no rebuttal, so your "aw, crap" is no better than my "aw, shit".

Wow, you didn't understand anything you just read, did you?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Adam

"Because the Queen can sway public opinion" is quite possibly my favorite conspiracy theorist get out of jail free card.

I know, right? Just when you think the thread is getting stale, she drops a gem like that.

[ceptimus]

In the new world, once the measles virus realizes that it won't be blamed for causing infections then something something ...

... and then there will be no further need for vaccinations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The alleged "proof" regarding aluminum found in the journal Entropy in 2012* was not a study at all. They searched the VAERS database for keywords. Do you understand the significance of that, peacegirl?

*This was mentioned in the article but not properly cited. How do they expect people to do their own research if they don't offer citations such as the name of the study and the date of publication? I know how to look this stuff up, but not everyone does.

Okay, here's another study for you.

Abstract

Several neurological disorders have been linked to inflammatory insults suffered during development. We investigated the effects of neonatal systemic inflammation, induced by LPS injections, on blood-brain barrier permeability, endothelial tight junctions and behaviour of juvenile (P20) and adult rats. LPS-treatment resulted in altered cellular localisation of claudin-5 and changes in ultrastructural morphology of a few cerebral blood vessels. Barrier permeability to sucrose was significantly increased in LPS treated animals when adult but not at P20 or earlier. Behavioural tests showed that LPS treated animals at P20 exhibited altered behaviour using prepulse inhibition (PPI) analysis, whereas adults demonstrated altered behaviour in the dark/light test. These data indicate that an inflammatory insult during brain development can change blood-brain barrier permeability and behaviour in later life. It also suggests that the impact of inflammation can occur in several phases (short- and long-term) and that each phase might lead to different behavioural modifications.

1. Introduction

Human data related to disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, and cerebral palsy indicate that a period of infection/inflammation during specific stages of brain development may act as a triggering insult [1–4]. In animal experimental studies, inflammation induced during the early postnatal period in rodents has been associated with increased blood-brain barrier permeability [5], white matter damage [6–13], ventricular enlargement [9, 14], and reduced neuron numbers in regions of the hippocampus and cerebellum [15, 16]. In addition, in animals exposed to inflammation in utero or during early postnatal life, long-term behavioural alterations such as deficits in prepulse inhibition test [17, 18], motor behaviour [19], and learning and memory [19, 20] have also been reported. However, the biological mechanisms involved in these pathologies are still not understood. To date there are no studies that directly investigated possible links between changes in blood-brain barrier permeability and behavioural alterations in animals exposed to an inflammatory mediator during early stages of brain development.

Effects of Neonatal Systemic Inflammation on Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability and Behaviour in Juvenile and Adult Rats

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOLL, so much for your assertion that you are trying to verify the "studies" you are posting for accuracy. You just believe whatever makes you feel more satisfied to believe.

All I am saying is that the parents of children who have been hurt by vaccines need to be heard. They are the canaries in the coal mine that are sounding the alarm. Even though all the studies are not in, there is a nagging suspicion that vaccines are implicated in a lot of these immune and brain disorders.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I know, right? Just when you think the thread is getting stale, she drops a gem like that.

Conspiracy theory? I am just stating that the Queen has influence over her constituency, even if she doesn't make public policy. If vaccinations happened to be her platform, people would support her and flock to get vaccinated. They would also expect the High Court to side with the father since not vaccinating may be considered negligent on the mother's part. This just shows how the thinking of the day may have a profound effect on how the court rules. Can we get off this topic now?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am saying is that the parents of children who have been hurt by vaccines need to be heard. They are the canaries in the coal mine that are sounding the alarm. Even though all the studies are not in, there is a nagging suspicion that vaccines are implicated in a lot of these immune disorders.

That's the thing, though. With some exceptions, which are generally known to the medical community, there are, to the best of anyone's knowledge, no "children who have been hurt by vaccines". There are "children who have some sort of health problem that their parents have a vague hunch, fed by the antivax crowd, may have been caused by a vaccine". I guess they need to be "heard" whatever that means.

You know who else needs to be "heard", though? The parents of the millions of children who we do have damned good evidence would be dying every single year if not for widespread vaccination.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why not take a read and see how many are fraudalent junk papers, hm?

For example, #10:

Uh-oh, what did he do?

That sounds pretty bad! But at least there was no money involved, right?

I agree that my answer to you was defensive. Let's start over.

Of course there was money involved, that's how people get compensated by the legal system. I didn't read the whole article because you have to subscribe to a journal. I would if it's that important. Aren't you jumping to conclusions that his ulterior motive was unpure just because he didn't admit his personal relationship? And even if he made money off of the case, how does that discredit him in terms of his findings and the findings of those who are investigating the case? Just because it was his child does not mean he had a conflicting financial interest and that he was out to exploit her. Doesn't he deserve compensation for the pain and suffering he and his child had to endure, let alone the medical expenses? This is the least the courts could do, since government is given immunity.

Equally incredible is his suggestion that he should be excused for his failure to disclose an unquestionably relevant legal claim — a claim with a potential value exceeding $1 million — because it had not yet reached the hearing stage, and because his attorney was navigating the slowly-moving procedural waters for him.

I'll guarantee you that if he could get his healthy child back, he would happily give back the money.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Aw, crap.

And why shouldn't he be excused for not revealing the amount he would be compensated for? People immediately assume that he is hiding something (he probably felt that announcing his award was inappropriate and would be used against him, which it would have in all probability) when the real money grubbers are pharmaceutical companies and government officials who have a huge financial stake in vaccines (in the billions), which makes his financial award look like a drop in the bucket.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's the thing, though. With some exceptions, which are generally known to the medical community, there are, to the best of anyone's knowledge, no "children who have been hurt by vaccines".

That is just not true Adam that to the best of anyone's knowledge there are no children who have been hurt by vaccines. That's exactly what they are trying to find out because these adjuvants in vaccines could be the trigger for many of these immune disorders, if not the direct cause. I am the one being looked at as being one-sided, but if I'm one-sided so is everyone else.

Originally Posted by Adam

There are "children who have some sort of health problem that their parents have a vague hunch, fed by the antivax crowd, may have been caused by a vaccine". I guess they need to be "heard" whatever that means.

You know exactly what it means. How can you turn your nose up at a parent who watched her child turn into a different child within the span of an hour after the vaccine was given. I'm giving this as an example because the connection is obvious, and for you to look at this parent and ignore her testimony because there are no double blind studies would be cruel.

Originally Posted by Adam

You know who else needs to be "heard", though? The parents of the millions of children who we do have damned good evidence would be dying every single year if not for widespread vaccination.

You keep saying that but there is no evidence to support the idea that disease can only be stopped through mass vaccination, and that if we stop vaccinating every single disease will come back with a vengeance.

[Adam]

Yes, yes, we can dismiss piles and piles of empirical evidence on the efficacy of vaccination in preventing deadly disease, but how could we ever dismiss the anecdotal evidence of non-medically-trained parents who've done amateur analyses of cases in which they have an obvious overwhelming personal stake?