A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is that a daft point other than your insistence that anything I say is daft.

Try reading your own words.

[Vivisectus]

I think we can all learn a lesson from what we have seen here recently.

We are conversing with someone who has been here for years. And only in the past week or so has she discovered the rest of the smileys. PG may be a lot of things, but a quick learner is obviously not one of them.

That said - huzzah! Learning has been achieved. I wish you joy of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we can all learn a lesson from what we have seen here recently.

We are conversing with someone who has been here for years. And only in the past week or so has she discovered the rest of the smileys. PG may be a lot of things, but a quick learner is obviously not one of them.

That said - huzzah! Learning has been achieved. I wish you joy of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

No, I meant that in the present parents have been proven to be right or they wouldn't be getting compensation for their vaccine injured children.

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

It is not a strawman. If they know that all vaccines are not safe, then it explains why parents need to be concerned.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

Well that's a good thing. That is why in the new world no doctor would want the responsibility of telling a parent what to do. It will be up to the parent to decide if it's worth the risk, no one else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

Maybe so because at that time I was trying to explain the mechanism in a different way and in the process I may have said something incorrect. But I cleared it up since then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agreed. So let's not talk about it.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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

I didn't bring this topic up in the first place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Unfortunately, by the time they do the studies only to confirm that the parents were correct all along, many children will continue to suffer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

What other causal factors could be responsible for a catastrophic reaction immediately after a vaccine? And even if there are other possible factors that could be contributing to these chronic disorders, it is wise to eliminate as many of these factors as possible, especially when mild or serious brain damage could be the end result.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Where did I get it backwards? The study had to do with inflammation in the developing brain of the neonatal rat resulting in behavioral changes later in life. It wasn't directly related to vaccines.

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.

<snip>

Increasing evidence, both clinical and experimental, indicates that an early inflammatory insult can affect brain development and behaviour later in life. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between changes in the permeability properties of the blood-brain barrier induced by a period of neonatal inflammation and later behaviour using the rat as an experimental model.

<snip>

Sucrose permeability was increased throughout the cortex in these animals, indicating that other low molecular weight molecules, such as some drugs or heavy metals, may have prolonged access to the brain, potentially contributing to long-term damage of the brain.

<snip>

In conclusion, the present results demonstrate that a period of prolonged systemic inflammation in the neonatal rat can cause a multitude of modifications that manifest in later life, ranging from alterations in behaviour, changes in blood-brain barrier permeability and in structure of some cerebral blood vessels. The results also show that these changes develop at different times after the initiating inflammatory insult and are not always temporally correlated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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?

You cannot tell me with absolute certainty that vaccine adjuvants are not causing serious damage in some children, and that's all I would need to know, as a parent, to make a decision especially when some of these diseases that vaccines are supposed to prevent are much milder than in generations past.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

? You can back that opinion up I suppose?

What I meant by that is that a patient can help the doctor make an accurate diagnosis by giving as much information about his symptoms as possible. With research at our fingertips, the patient may be able to make the correct diagnosis before the doctor does.

Opinion: When doctors don't listen - CNN.com

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other causal factors could be responsible for a catastrophic reaction immediately after a vaccine? And even if there are other possible factors that could be contributing to these chronic disorders, it is wise to eliminate as many of these factors as possible, especially when mild or serious brain damage could be the end result.

That depends on how you define "catastrophic reaction", and investigate what all possible causes there are for it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I get it backwards? The study had to do with inflammation in the developing brain of the neonatal rat resulting in behavioral changes later in life. It wasn't directly related to vaccines.

The purposefully induced inflammation led to the BBB permeability, not the other way around. You had it backwards.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, by the time they do the studies only to confirm that the parents were correct all along, many children will continue to suffer.

Again, appeal to future consequences.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about previous studies before the Amish became inculcated with the Western way of doing things?

Citations?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is such a ridiculous answer that I am pulling my hair out.

Your not understanding my point does not make the point ridiculous.

If the symptoms of autism do not create any problems for a person in their community or society, then it is not an impairment of social interaction or communication within that group, and there would be no reason to seek a diagnosis or treatment, right?

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/autism_spectrum.htm

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot tell me with absolute certainty that vaccine adjuvants are not causing serious damage in some children, and that's all I need to know to make a decision especially when some of these diseases that vaccines are supposed to prevent are much milder than in generations past.

No-one is claiming the safety of vaccines with absolute certainty, to demand that is outside the realm of possibility.

To make a decision based on a lack of absolute certainty is not rational. This decision should be based on the course of least harm, and that is by having the vaccinations.

The diseases that the vaccines prevent are not milder now that in generations past, they are just mostly absent due to the vaccines that mostly prevent them. Without the vaccines that prevent them, these diseases would be just as prevalent as in the past, and when they occur, without medical intervention, they would be just as deadly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I meant by that is that a patient can help the doctor make an accurate diagnosis by giving as much information about his symptoms as possible. With research at our fingertips, the patient may be able to make the correct diagnosis before the doctor does.

Something I heard some time ago. "Anyone who acts as his own counsel in a legal matter, has a fool for a lawyer." Similarly "A person who attempts to diagnose their own medical condition, has a fool for a doctor." When I go to a doctor for a consultation I am often asked "How are you today?" and I will reply, "That's what I'm here to find out."

[Vivisectus]

You cannot tell me with absolute certainty that vaccine adjuvants are not causing serious damage in some children, and that's all I need to know to make a decision especially when some of these diseases that vaccines are supposed to prevent are much milder than in generations past.

What we can say is that we currently see no reason to believe they are unsafe if we test these vaccines properly, and that while we have seen a level of adverse reactions, it is a very low one, as opposed to the much greater risk of the diseases they seek to avoid. Which have not become more "mild" at all: that is a rather idiotic claim to make. We still see 1 or 2 deaths and a handful of permanent injuries per 1000 measles cases, even in countries with excellent medical services like the Netherlands.

It is just a case of ambiguity bias: people tend to prefer known risks (such as preventable diseases) to unknown ones, even if the unknown risk is smaller than the known one.

But this message is having a tough time coming across, as people prefer simple emotive stories to rather dry, technical and complicated ones that explain why the reality is sometimes counter-intuitive. People tend to reject what they do not understand, and most people know shockingly little about how their own bodies operate.

As a result, the emotive anecdotal stories, the plain old erroneous information and the naturalistic fallacy-driven explanations spread - they require no real understanding, so they do not have the same competence-threshold. The debunkings do not, as they require a certain level of knowledge.

Combine all this with a healthy dose of confirmation bias, and you get the anti-vax movement. I find it fascinating: it is like a massive natural experiment into how people process and retain information.

Sadly, there is evidence that vaccine paranoia is now being exported to developing countries. We will have to see what the effects are going to be there. Without the medical infrastructure - let us face it, without the evidence-based medicine that anti-vaxers in developed countries reject on the one hand, but fall back on when they develop the illnesses vaccines are supposed to prevent and then use the outcome as "evidence" that the diseases are "milder", the results could be rather ugly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That depends on how you define "catastrophic reaction", and investigate what all possible causes there are for it.

A catastrophic reaction is a reaction to the vaccine that a parent knows is not normal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Something I heard some time ago. "Anyone who acts as his own counsel in a legal matter, has a fool for a lawyer." Similarly "A person who attempts to diagnose their own medical condition, has a fool for a doctor." When I go to a doctor for a consultation I am often asked "How are you today?" and I will reply, "That's what I'm here to find out."

When I got ill no doctor could pinpoint what was wrong. I lucked out by talking to a pharmacist who changed his profession and used his frustration to open up a health clinic. His associate turned me on to a holistic doctor who ordered the right tests. These tests were not normally ordered because endocrine problems are not the first thing doctors think of in the allopathic field. Now these tests are much more commonplace but you still have to ask for them if you go to a doctor that deals with disease management.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The purposefully induced inflammation led to the BBB permeability, not the other way around. You had it backwards.

You're right, I corrected it. See I'm not weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your not understanding my point does not make the point ridiculous.

If the symptoms of autism do not create any problems for a person in their community or society, then it is not an impairment of social interaction or communication within that group, and there would be no reason to seek a diagnosis or treatment, right?

Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Parent&rsquo;s Guide to Symptoms and Diagnosis on the Autism Spectrum

I was thinking in terms of severe autism. If a child in the Amish community would not be sent to a specialist, how do you know a child in the larger community would be sent to a specialist if a child's symptoms did not interfere with his everyday life to any noticeable degree? He may be evaluated as a slow learner, but not as an autistic child. These definitions cannot give us complete accuracy. If I as a parent have the slightest inkling that toxic metals in vaccines could interfere with my child's intellectual potential, I would never want to take that chance. In your effort to find any reason under the sun to discount the possibility of a comparative study with the Amish community, you are actually doing a disservice to those children who have been harmed by vaccines.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A catastrophic reaction is a reaction to the vaccine that a parent knows is not normal.

So add "Catastrophic-adj. Not normal " to the peacegirl/Lessans new world dictionary of brand new definitions.

Anyway, until you can identify and define the exact problem (in this case a diagnosis), you can't begin to search for possible causes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No-one is claiming the safety of vaccines with absolute certainty, to demand that is outside the realm of possibility.

To make a decision based on a lack of absolute certainty is not rational. This decision should be based on the course of least harm, and that is by having the vaccinations.

The diseases that the vaccines prevent are not milder now that in generations past, they are just mostly absent due to the vaccines that mostly prevent them. Without the vaccines that prevent them, these diseases would be just as prevalent as in the past, and when they occur, without medical intervention, they would be just as deadly.

That's what they say, but studies have shown that these diseases were getting milder before mass vaccinations became the order of the day. Why aren't you reading the links I have provided which show these statistics?

[LadyShea]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So add "Catastrophic-adj. Not normal " to the peacegirl/Lessans new world dictionary of brand new definitions.

Anyway, until you can identify and define the exact problem (in this case a diagnosis), you can't begin to search for possible causes.

Catastrophic is a debilitating reaction. Stop belittling me in order to look like you are always right. And you are wrong that a parent has to wait for science to find out the exact cause of a child's catastrophic reaction. It could take years. They have to act on their parental intuition which turns out to be right in all of these cases.