A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

I cannot believe you are saying the things you're saying. A non-medically trained parent who sees her child day in and day out is in a much better position to give a firsthand account of what actually happened. Moreover, there are more and more anecdotal cases coming forward with the same heartbreaking stories. So are you telling me that her testimony means nothing? What is the personal stake that she is invested in other than helping her child who is now sick get the help she needs? I am glad you are not on any board making these decisions, or you would be hurting a lot of families. Piles and piles of evidence doesn't compare to a parent's direct observations, and for you to act like it means nothing is so offensive, I'm glad you have no influence over these cases.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[Adam]

Peacegirl, people who have direct emotional involvement is some case are hardly in the best position to yield objective observations or conclusions about it. You say your views are scientific (or based in science, or whatever), but you show no understanding of what that means. You dismiss properly controlled experiments and studies designed to weed out bias in favor of anecdotal information provided by people with direct intimate emotional stakes in the cases on which they are reporting.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot believe you are saying the things you're saying. A non-medically trained parent who sees her child day in and day out is in a much better position to give a firsthand account of what actually happened. Moreover, there are more and more anecdotal cases coming forward with the same heartbreaking stories. So are you telling me that her testimony means nothing? What is the personal stake that she is invested in other than helping her child who is now sick get the help she needs? I am glad you are not on any board making these decisions, or you would be hurting a lot of families. Piles and piles of evidence doesn't compare to a parent's direct observations, and for you to act like it means nothing is so offensive, I'm glad you have no influence over these cases.

That's right; science is no match for emotionally laden anecdotes!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A non-medically trained parent who sees her child day in and day out is in a much better position to give a firsthand account of what actually happened. Moreover, there are more and more anecdotal cases coming forward with the same heartbreaking stories. So are you telling me that her testimony means nothing? What is the personal stake that she is invested in other than helping her child who is now sick get the help she needs?

Any person who lacks medical training or at least valid information about the condition in question, is in no position to render a medical evaluation of anyone, especially their own child. If a child is vaccinated and gets a cold there is no reason to blame the vaccination, there are many other factors in the environment that could have triggered the response, and the parent who is non-medically trained, is not qualified to make that judgment.

Many years ago My daughter complained about a pain in her belly and my wife thought it was just a belly ache, till I asked the daughter to point to where it hurt. When she did, I took her straight to the hospital and she had an appendectomy. The doctor said it was worse that they thought it would be from the daughters description of the pain. I knew from the location what it might be, my wife didn't know.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing an essential element that makes this model anything but magic.

Apparently so are you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea how this conversation started up again...

There's no mystery to it. You started trying to discuss it again. Which has of course immediately led to more weaseling on your part.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

[Spacemonkey]

So, to clarify...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

This was a complete lie. You still aren't making any effort at all to verify anything that you post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said in the early days of this thread when I felt backed into a corner I may have weaseled, but I have no reason to now.

This was also complete bollocks, as you are still in full weasel mode.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that they judged me for weaseling and that I was better off being honest, but it's too late. We can't go back in time.

And this was also insincere. You apparently still think that weaseling is a perfectly acceptable behaviour which you are making no attempt at all to cease engaging in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Peacegirl, people who have direct emotional involvement is some case are hardly in the best position to yield objective observations or conclusions about it. You say your views are scientific (or based in science, or whatever), but you show no understanding of what that means. You dismiss properly controlled experiments and studies designed to weed out bias in favor of anecdotal information provided by people with direct intimate emotional stakes in the cases on which they are reporting.

That is not what I'm doing Adam, though I am listening carefully to what parents are describing. You cannot ignore all of these testimonies of children who were well and suddenly showed signs of autistic behavior right after the child was given the vaccine. How much more obvious can the smoking gun be?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm doing Adam, though I am listening carefully to what parents are describing. You cannot ignore all of these testimonies of children who were well and suddenly showed signs of autistic behavior right after the child was given the vaccine. How much more obvious can the smoking gun be?

How much more of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy can that be?

This kind of mistake is exactly why for rational people, actual evidence always trumps intuition, hunches, and anecdotes.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Piles and piles of evidence doesn't compare to a parent's direct observations ...

That's true, but not for the reason you believe it's true.

---------------

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I prefer the unvarnished Lessans viewpoint, under which light needn't be in contact with the retina for the eyes to work. The stuff about the same photons being simultaneously at the sun and in contact with a retina here on earth is just apologetics, and bad apologetics at that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So, to clarify...

This was a complete lie. You still aren't making any effort at all to verify anything that you post.

I'm trying to read them as I go along and verify that what they are saying is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said in the early days of this thread when I felt backed into a corner I may have weaseled, but I have no reason to now.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This was also complete bollocks, as you are still in full weasel mode.

Whatever!! I'm never going to do enough to make you feel confident that this discovery is valid. You will continue to accuse me of being a weasel with no ability to know what is valid and what isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that they judged me for weaseling and that I was better off being honest, but it's too late. We can't go back in time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And this was also insincere. You apparently still think that weaseling is a perfectly acceptable behaviour which you are making no attempt at all to cease engaging in.

I'm doing the best I can. If you want we could go over each study one at a time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to read them as I go along and verify that what they are saying is true.

You're lying to me again. You may be reading them, but you certainly aren't doing anything at all to verify their accuracy. That was a lie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever!! I'm never going to do enough to make you feel confident that this discovery is valid. You will continue to accuse me of being a weasel with no ability to know what is valid and what isn't.

You are weaseling, so you were either lying or mistaken when you claimed your weaseling days were behind you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can.

The fuck you are. You're not making the slightest effort to stop weaseling and to actually start being honest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's true, but not for the reason you believe it's true.

And what happens when parents are proven to be right? What if you were the one that added insult to injury and told them that their observations meant nothing only to find out later that you were wrong?

---------------

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I prefer the unvarnished Lessans viewpoint, under which light needn't be in contact with the retina for the eyes to work. The stuff about the same photons being simultaneously at the sun and in contact with a retina here on earth is just apologetics, and bad apologetics at that.

I never said the same photons were simultaneously at the sun and in contact with the retina. I said that light is not static, it is constantly moving. For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the function of light, and why the requirements of brightness and size allows real time vision to occur. You have to remember that distance has no relevance in this account. You could have something a million miles away but if it was large enough and bright enough so that it was within optical range (whether we were using a high powered telescope or the naked eye), we would be able to see it or photograph it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the same photons were simultaneously at the sun and in contact with the retina.

Another lie. You've said precisely that several times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the dynamic of what light does, and why the requirements, when met, do not involve light having to travel great distances.

The reason being of course, that it is completely impossible for light to get from one place to another without traveling the intervening distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying to me again. You may be reading them, but you certainly aren't doing anything at all to verify their accuracy. That was a lie.

It was not a lie. I am trying to verify whether the facts of the studies are correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever!! I'm never going to do enough to make you feel confident that this discovery is valid. You will continue to accuse me of being a weasel with no ability to know what is valid and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are weaseling, so you were either lying or mistaken when you claimed your weaseling days were behind you.

Would you get off of this weaseling kick?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The fuck you are. You're not making the slightest effort to stop weaseling and to actually start being honest.

YES I AM!

I don't think you would know what to do if we didn't argue. Do you enjoy this bickering back and forth? And please don't tell me to stop weaseling because I don't believe that's what I'm doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another lie. You've said precisely that several times.

No I have not. Not the same photons Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the dynamic of what light does, and why the requirements, when met, do not involve light having to travel great distances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The reason being of course, that it is completely impossible for light to get from one place to another without traveling the intervening distance.

I never said that it didn't. What you are missing is that light only has to be around the object for it to be seen because of the way the eyes work, not light. And if it's true that the eyes work this way, then cameras also work this way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not a lie. I am trying to verify whether the facts of the studies are correct.

How? What are you actually doing to try to verify the information?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you get off of this weaseling kick?

Sure. Just as soon as you stop weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YES I AM!

Really? What efforts are you making to stop weaseling and start being honest?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And please don't tell me to stop weaseling because I don't believe that's what I'm doing.

What would you call it? You are deliberately ignoring and evading direct questions. That is the very definition of weaseling.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I have not. Not the same photons Spacemonkey.

Yes, you have. Do you need us to show you the quotes again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that it didn't.

That's exactly what you just said. You denied that the light has to travel great distances. But when the distance between the light source and the camera or retina is great, that is exactly what the light has to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you are missing is that light only has to be around the object for it to be seen...

You know that's false. You've repeatedly agreed that this is false. You know that light also has to be in contact with the retina or film for anything to be seen or photographed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if it's true that the eyes work this way, then cameras also work this way.

But you can't make this work for either eyes or cameras. In neither case can you explain how light gets to be at the retina or film where you need it to be.

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?

Weaseling in 3... 2... 1...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think the following statement comes close to what he meant to say when he said the BBB doesn't exist.

You're trying to defend the indefensible with made-up ad hoc rationalizations. The only evidence we have of what O'Shea meant was what he wrote, i.e., "There's no blood-brain barrier in infants." That's a false statement, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe he was wrong when saying this, especially when it comes to the purpose of his statement which is that metal ions can get into an infant's brain.

What you believe is bereft of consequence. He wrote that "There's no blood-brain barrier in infants," which is wrong as a simple matter of fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is true you are splitting hairs.

Pointing out that the statement "There's no blood-brain barrier in infants" is false does not qualify as "splitting hairs" under any meaningful understanding of that term.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Blood brain barrier

Anything posted on Whale.to is inherently unreliable. Remember, you're citing as authoritative people who think Protocols of the Elders of Zion is for real.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are catching him on a technicality. The excretion rate of mercury is much slower than adults. That means that an infant's biliary system for all intents and purposes does not work well, and could contribute to thimerosal poisoning.

O'Shea wrote that "Infants don't produce bile," period. he did not qualify the statement in any way, shape or form. The undisputed fact that the statement is false is not a mere technicality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see how it has served you well if your goal is to be unbiased.

My goal was to develop an approach to use in determining which claims warrant further investigation, given the virtually infinite number of claims out there and the very limited investigation time. The approach I use works extraordinarily well in that respect.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I don't know anything about Mike Adams other than what I have read on his website.

The odious nutjobbery I was talking about is all posted on his website. It ain't like he's ashamed of it or anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if your metholodogy is wrong?

As previously mentioned, it's an approach and it works very well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if you first read what a person has to say before condemning him by searching out the gossip. Maybe in so doing you would find a mountain of truth atop a "nugget or two of shit".

Possible, but so exceeding improbable as to render the effort unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it would help me to know where your allegiance lies.

Oh, all right.

Much like federal regulation of the scuzzball financial/lending industry, regulation of the drug and medical device industries is all too often illusory. Most of the time, the FDA serves as little more than the bought-and-paid-for toadies of the very industries it's supposed to regulate. That, of course, is bad news for drug and medical device safety.

The surest way to make drug and device manufacturers stand up and take notice is very large adverse money judgments in civil lawsuits. In that regard, however, Congress, the FDA and the federal courts combine to set preemption, procedural and substantive law hurdles so high that few can clear them. Again, it's all about protecting the status quo.

So yeah, fuck the FDA.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're being too hard on him.

Nope, not at all.

However, I'll retract the "dumbass" allegation and substitute "liar." O'Shea's had sufficient training in human anatomy that the only reasonable supposition is that he had actual knowledge his statements about infants, the blood-brain barrier and bile production were false. Despite that knowledge, he made the statements anyway. Again, that's contemptible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a nugget of truth to these two statements, even though they were exaggerated.

No, that's incorrect. The statements "There's no blood-brain barrier in infants" and "Infants don't produce bile" are entirely false. Your eagerness to defend O'Shea's false statements by positing meanings not even remotely suggested by the words he used doesn't bode well for your credibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The anti-vaxers are drawing in more and more adherents. Are you going to beat them all (figuratively) with baseball bats, or are you going to take time to see why this issue is not going away?

I already know why the issue isn't going away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your dogs are very sweet. Yes, we're both kindred spirits in this regard. My dogs come first. If they weren't well taken care of, I wouldn't be able to have a good time.

Yep, few things improve quality of life as much as sharing your home with a good dog or three. Got any photos of yours?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what happens when parents are proven to be right?

Appeal to imagined future consequences. By now you should know that such appeals aren't especially convincing 'round these parts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if you were the one that added insult to injury and told them that their observations meant nothing only to find out later that you were wrong?

Since I've never stated or suggested that their observations "meant nothing," your appeal to emotion has missed the mark (as appeals to emotion generally do).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the same photons were simultaneously at the sun and in contact with the retina.

Sure you have. Multiple times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light is not static, it is constantly moving.

Yep, you've said that too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the function of light, and why the requirements of brightness and size allows real time vision to occur. You have to remember that distance has no relevance in this account. You could have something a million miles away but if it was large enough and bright enough so that it was within optical range (whether we were using a high powered telescope or the naked eye), we would be able to see it or photograph it.

You're just pontificating. Simply repeating X over and over, in different ways, without providing any actual explanation of the how and why of X is pointless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Any person who lacks medical training or at least valid information about the condition in question, is in no position to render a medical evaluation of anyone, especially their own child. If a child is vaccinated and gets a cold there is no reason to blame the vaccination, there are many other factors in the environment that could have triggered the response, and the parent who is non-medically trained, is not qualified to make that judgment.

Many years ago My daughter complained about a pain in her belly and my wife thought it was just a belly ache, till I asked the daughter to point to where it hurt. When she did, I took her straight to the hospital and she had an appendectomy. The doctor said it was worse that they thought it would be from the daughters description of the pain. I knew from the location what it might be, my wife didn't know.

A non-medically trained parent can be extremely helpful in explaining what she observed. Observation is very important in correctly putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Anytime something is administered and a short time later there is a marked change in their child which is persistent, this is a cause for concern and should be followed up on. If my child got the pertussis vaccine and gave a loud piercing cry which is a warning that something may be wrong, do you think I would listen to a doctor who tells me to give my child the second dose just because studies have told him that there is no connection?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Appeal to imagined future consequences. By now you should know that such appeals aren't especially convincing 'round these parts.

These are not appeals to future consequences. There are parents who have been awarded damages, but I bet it was a battle to get what was coming to them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if you were the one that added insult to injury and told them that their observations meant nothing only to find out later that you were wrong?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Since I've never stated or suggested that their observations "meant nothing," your appeal to emotion has missed the mark (as appeals to emotion generally do).

Well I'm glad to hear that their observations mean something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the same photons were simultaneously at the sun and in contact with the retina.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Sure you have. Multiple times.

Not the same photons. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light is not static, it is constantly moving.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yep, you've said that too.

Well that's correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the function of light, and why the requirements of brightness and size allows real time vision to occur. You have to remember that distance has no relevance in this account. You could have something a million miles away but if it was large enough and bright enough so that it was within optical range (whether we were using a high powered telescope or the naked eye), we would be able to see it or photograph it.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're just pontificating. Simply repeating X over and over, in different ways, without providing any actual explanation of the how and why of X is pointless.

Agreed. So let's not talk about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that it didn't. What you are missing is that light only has to be around the object for it to be seen because of the way the eyes work, not light. And if it's true that the eyes work this way, then cameras also work this way.

So what you are saying is that the Brain "looks" out through the eyes and "sees" the object directly and instantly? And Cameras work the same way, even without a brain?