A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Absolutely right! a parent can provide extremely useful information of observations, but may be totally incorrect on what those observations mean. Just as in my example, my wife wasn't sure what pain in the belly could mean but when I found exactly where the pain was I had a much better idea of what it could mean. An untrained parent could come to some very dangerous conclusions out of ignorance, even though they know all the symptoms in detail.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

You have absolutely said they were the same photons, several times, and you were quite clear about it. Claiming that you may not have been clear is just another lie. Unlike you, I have a very good memory for some things.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not appeals to future consequences.

Sure it is. You wrote, "And what happens when parents are proven to be right?" (Emphasis added.) That there's a quintessential appeal to future consequences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are parents who have been awarded damages, but I bet it was a battle to get what was coming to them.

Lots of people have been awarded compensation. The notion that government and the medical establishment claim that all vaccines are safe for all people is a preposterous anti-vax strawman.

Are you familiar with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Since its inception in 1989, over $2.5 billion has been paid out on nearly 3,400 successful claims. It's a no-fault compensation system in that the injured person doesn't have to provide that the vaccine at issue was defective or that the manufacturer was negligent or otherwise acted tortiously. It's enough to prove that a causal connection between the injury or death at issue and the vaccine.

In addition, certain specific conditions are presumed to be caused by certain vaccines even in the absence of proof. No one, and I mean no one, thinks all vaccines are safe for all people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Yep, the same photons, and you were quite clear. Must be another one of those circumstance in which we had a duty to divine that you were saying something other than what you meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agreed. So let's not talk about it.

Fine by me, but history shows that your ability to steer clear of that topic leaves much to be desired.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

And your conclusion that this study has anything to do with vaccines comes from where?

[The Lone Ranger]

Good point: after all, the whole point of vaccination is to reduce the likelihood of infection and inflammation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not always unethical but in the new world these situations will not come up. Yes, in our society we have to overrule parents who are not responsible but we're not talking about irresponsible parents. We're talking about the right of a court to overrule a parent's right to what she believes is in the best interest of her child. The courts are not scientists. They don't know if this child could be damaged due to the vaccines that he now is being mandated by law to get.

Apparently you not only neglected to read the article, you even neglected to read the title in the link that Dragar posted. The children in question were not a he, they were two shes.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, weasel. I didn't ask about the brightness, I asked if there would be photons located at human eyes on Earth

Tsk, tsk, LasyShea. Peacegirl said not to answer that post because she did not want to get into this discussion again. You are not very good at following directions are you?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would there be photons located on Earth, at the eyes and on camera film or digital sensors, before the photons traveling from the Sun arrived on Earth? You have said yes a dozen times, shall I dig up the quotes for you?

Lessans didn't even take the mechanics of camera film and photoreceptors into account. That there must be photons physically located on camera film for a photograph to be taken didn't even occur to him...he never mentioned cameras. You have had to try to reconcile this, and it cannot be reconciled.

It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor

It's not a belief nor have you disputed it at all, you've simply claimed magic and left it at that. You have to show that it is physically possible for something that is traveling to be somewhere where it hasn't reached yet. You have photons in two places at once, which is fine, if you can demonstrate that to be possible with physics

If I am traveling in my car between your house and mine, can I already be at your house?

Yes, if peacegirl is living in your car. You didn't even consider that possiblity did you? Darn those confounding variables.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you know? Even if you don't know why haven't you formed an opinion? Can you not determine whose information to trust? Why not? What criteria are you using to try to verify the information you are reading , and are both sides of this particular issue really so equally compelling? Why is it even difficult? Does nobody who is interested in this topic try to track autism diagnoses?

I don't want to see videos, which is just people talking about their opinions. I want to see actual scientific information and analysis. The guy is a doctor, he knows how to write a paper with proper citations.

Peacegirl prefers videos. Probably because she really doesn't read very well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Absolutely right! a parent can provide extremely useful information of observations, but may be totally incorrect on what those observations mean. Just as in my example, my wife wasn't sure what pain in the belly could mean but when I found exactly where the pain was I had a much better idea of what it could mean. An untrained parent could come to some very dangerous conclusions out of ignorance, even though they know all the symptoms in detail.

And so can doctors!! Most of the time the patient is right when diagnosing his own condition, especially after doing the research. This still does not relate to the accurate observation that the source of the behavioral changes came from the vaccine. It would be no different than a person getting an immediate reaction from taking an antibiotic that didn't agree with him. The doctor would [hopefully] put two and two together and tell them not to take that drug anymore. The unfortunate thing about vaccines is that we're dealing with children whose brains are not fully developed, and could leave permanent damage.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of the time the patient is right when diagnosing their own condition.

? You can back that opinion up I suppose?

This still does not relate the accurate observation that the source of the extreme behavioral changes came from the vaccine, just like certain people may have a bad reaction to a medicine, and they immediately say stop taking the medicine because you had a reaction.

DO you understand what post hoc ergo propter hoc even means or why it is problematic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl prefers videos. Probably because she really doesn't read very well.

I've also posted links to written studies that have citations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

? You can back that opinion up I suppose?

DO you understand what post hoc ergo propter hoc even means or why it is problematic?

Now I do.

Noun, 1. post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation. post hoc · logical fallacy - a fallacy in ...

Why couldn't you just say logical fallacy? It would have been so much easier?
If I eat dinner and am full, you can logically conclude that eating causes fullness. Are you telling me that an immediate reaction to something that was never before felt does not come from that something? Maybe one in a million there would be no causal connection, but most people would safely say with 100% accuracy that food ingested and a full feeling five minutes later would be due to the food and I don't have to do an empirical study to prove it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Apparently you not only neglected to read the article, you even neglected to read the title in the link that Dragar posted. The children in question were not a he, they were two shes.

This didn't change the point I was making.

[LadyShea]

post hoc ergo propter hoc has been used in this thread a dozen times, and you just now looked it up? It's an error in reasoning that can be dangerous...as making correlation/causation conclusions without all of the information can lead to myopia. What if focusing exclusively on vaccines causes people to miss some other possible causal factors?

[LadyShea]

If I eat dinner and am full, you can logically conclude that eating causes fullness.

What other possible causes could there be fullness after eating other than eating?

Try this instead: What if you eat dinner then an hour later throw up. Can you logically conclude that eating caused the vomiting? While certainly the food is one possible cause, there are other causes of vomiting. If you prematurely blame food poisoning you may stop looking for the cause and miss it completely.

Are you telling me that an immediate reaction to something that was never before felt does not come from that something?

I am saying it might or might not, depending on what that something is and what that feeling is, and that jumping to a conclusion about causation can be dangerous. See my vomiting example.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And your conclusion that this study has anything to do with vaccines comes from where?

From the fact that an inflammatory response in the developing brain during the neonatal period of rats may cause permeability in the blood brain barrier which may lead to behavioral changes later in life. From this study they have theorized that there may be a correlation between inflammation/blood brain permeability in infancy, and autism (as well as other serious disorders).

[LadyShea]

Some reactions are absolutely due to vaccines...severe allergic reactions to ingredients absolutely can and do occur sometime. But you have been talking about autism and unnamed "chronic problems", and now undefined "reactions", not anaphylaxis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What other possible causes could there be fullness after eating other than eating?

Try this instead: What if you eat dinner then an hour later throw up. Can you logically conclude that eating caused the vomiting? While certainly the food is one possible cause, there are other causes of vomiting. If you prematurely blame food poisoning you may stop looking for the cause and miss it completely.

I am saying it might or might not, depending on what that something is and what that feeling is, and that jumping to a conclusion about causation can be dangerous. See my vomiting example.

Your reasoning goes against all common sense LadyShea when it comes to vaccines. That's what is so hurtful to parents of these vaccine damaged children. How dare you tell a parent who sees a marked change in a child to the degree of being unresponsive and non-communicative, and tell them that something else could be causing it when the injection was just given and is known to have toxic properties. Of course there are other causes to vomiting and you can't assume it's from the food. That analogy really pisses me off. And what really bothers me is you won't even listen or read anything other than studies. Believe it or not, this is what is giving you a less objective view rather than objective. Why can't you listen to these anecdotal accounts. You still have the option of disagreeing.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...mortality.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some reactions are absolutely due to vaccines...severe allergic reactions to ingredients absolutely can and do occur sometime. But you have been talking about autism and unnamed "chronic problems", and now undefined "reactions", not anaphylaxis.

I am trying to make a point that the person who had the reaction (regardless of the type of symptoms that were presenting) was most likely caused by the shot if it came immediately afterward. It is safe to conclude there was a CAUSAL connection.

[ceptimus]

The reason why the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is relevant to the vaccines/autism subject is that vaccinations are routinely given to children at about the same age when autism traits begin to become apparent; also even those people who believe that vaccinations cause autism admit that this only happens to a small minority of vaccinated children.

Now, imagine that no child was ever diagnosed with autism in the hours or days following a vaccination - that would be amazing! It would show that the vaccine, as well as protecting against, say, measles as intended was also giving temporary immunity against developing autism!

Let's say we want to scientifically test whether vaccinations cause autism symptoms in three-year-old children during the week following vaccination. First we would need to establish a baseline of how many unvaccinated three-year-olds showed the first signs of autism in a given week: for the sake of argument we can say this happens to 1 child out of every 100,000. Now for every million vaccinations given to three-year-olds we would expect about ten of those children to show autism signs in the week following vaccination - even if when the vaccine has no causal effect on autism whatsoever.

This is exactly what scientists have already done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Good point: after all, the whole point of vaccination is to reduce the likelihood of infection and inflammation.

That's what it's supposed to do but they are finding that it may be doing the exact opposite in some children.

One researcher has estimated that, in the case of autism, it may take 15 years to reach the standards of scientific proof that MMR vaccine is causing autism in a large portion of children with the condition. Can we afford to wait 15 years? For sake of argument, let us assume that scientific proof is eventually gained that MMR is causatively related to a significant portion of children with autism and developmental delay. If we continue to enforce vaccine programs as at present, one shudders to think what the future generations will think and write about us. Mistakes might be forgiven, but not the enforcement of these mistakes. If such does prove to be the case, we can rest assured that they will be neither kind nor charitable in their judgments of us.

http://www.whale.to/v/buttram.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to make a point that the person who had that reaction was caused by the drug.

Well that's an incredibly daft point to be making.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of the fact that permeability in the blood brain barrier of rodents may trigger an inflammatory response in the developing brain during the neonatal period

You either didn't read or didn't understand the study at all because you got it exactly backwards.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning goes against all common sense LadyShea when it comes to vaccines.

Your jumping to premature conclusions regarding vaccines goes against dedication to finding the causes of the problems you are concerned about.

That's what is so hurtful to parents of these vaccine damaged children. How dare you tell a parent who sees a marked change in a child to the degree of being unresponsive and non-communicative, and tell them that something else could be causing it when the injection was just given and is known to have toxic properties. Of course there are other causes to vomiting and you can't assume it's from the food. That analogy really pisses me off. And what really bothers me is you won't even listen or read anything other than studies. Believe it or not, this is what is giving you a less objective view rather than objective. Why can't you listen to these anecdotal accounts. You still have the option of disagreeing.

Jumping to uninformed and emotional conclusions does not help determine the cause of childhood illness.

Are we back to talking about autism exclusively, BTW? Is that the "reaction" you are talking about?