A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please note that "working" is one of those words that means something completely different in Lessanese, where preparing to attend a wedding is a major undertaking that needs to be done in stages so as to not get "overwhelmed".

We can only assume that when PG goes to a shoe store, she buys the pair one at a time, and with a week between purchases, to avoid overload.

You're not far off. I can only do a few things a day or I get exhausted due to my health condition.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you have not heard me this whole time. I would not tell anyone what to do, but in this world there are so many lies that I will research the issue and try to get accurate information. I will also discuss this issue with my son who is going to have a child in January. Since you asked me this question, let me ask you: How would you feel if you gave the wrong advice LadyShea since you seem to know so much?

Giving advice is not the issue, Ladyshea, or I, or anyone else can give advice but it is the responsibility of the person receiving the advice to choose to follow it or not. You seem to believe that advice, somehow binds a person to follow that advice. I have received a lot of advice that I ignored because I didn't believe it was correct, which is how I am receiving your advice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By saying that God doesn't make mistakes and His creation doesn't need human protection?

Why use the histrionic and emotionally laden language if it doesn't even convey what you mean?

My language was not meant to be histrionic. I meant what I said in that I believe more in nature's ability to heal than in man's. Yes, man has done wonders (thanks to the gifts he has been given), but he is also capable of destruction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know the way people are. One book reviewer wrote: Please don't send your book to me if there's any typos. Talk about pettiness. That's the way people are; they judge by all kinds of false standards. I know what I'm up against. I watched my father try to get his book recognized so peace could prevail but to no avail, and it's no different 50 years later.

If the discovery were so valuable and important, anyone reading it and accepting it at face value, would overlook a misplaced comma, misspelling or not-quite perfect margins. Any valid claim of this magnitude would overshadow any small errors in the book. A person concerned about typos is not concerned about the discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, where was he when 2 out of 5 children died by age 5? Why does he hate poor people now? Why are babies born with Harlequin Fetus?

Nature does not take sides. There are problems in our world that are difficult to solve, but to think that vaccines are going to save everyone from disease rather than creating a healthy environment where poor people get adequate nutrition, pure water, and a clean living space, is misguided, and may be creating a different kind of epidemic. Just as too many antibiotics are creating Superbugs, the same thing could be happening here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If the discovery were so valuable and important, anyone reading it and accepting it at face value, would overlook a misplaced comma, misspelling or not-quite perfect margins. Any valid claim of this magnitude would overshadow any small errors in the book. A person concerned about typos is not concerned about the discovery.

That may very well be true, but I didn't want to take a chance. My father didn't care about these things but I wanted to increase my chances of getting heard because of the type of book it is. People are already skeptical; I didn't want to give them further reason to be turned off. I realize that there will be always people who will have something negative to say. I just wanted to make sure I did the best I possibly could. Anyway, the book is done. I got my hard copy and I just bought a few books to start. The book costs me over $20, so it's not going to be easy sailing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if you don't like talking to me, you know the solution for that. You aren't mandated to talk to me.

You frustrate me, that's all. I obviously get satisfaction debating you. In doing so I have sharpened my research skills, so thank you for that. But when you say certain things, I get irked because you come off like you have all the answers which you don't. You have told me all along that I'm making assertions when it comes to the book, which I'm not. You have told me that greater satisfaction is a modal fallacy, which it isn't. You even have used mockery at times to further your personal agenda which is to discredit Lessans. In your effort to be a critical thinker, you have actually gone too far and it has backfired on you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Giving advice is not the issue, Ladyshea, or I, or anyone else can give advice but it is the responsibility of the person receiving the advice to choose to follow it or not. You seem to believe that advice, somehow binds a person to follow that advice. I have received a lot of advice that I ignored because I didn't believe it was correct, which is how I am receiving your advice.

I am not giving anyone advice. I am not telling anyone not to vaccinate; I wouldn't want that responsibility. I am only giving my opinion as to why I would be cautious. I think it's important to gather as much truthful information as possible so parents can make an informed decision, especially when it comes to their children's health.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In doing so I have sharpened my research skills...

That strikes me as highly implausible. How have your 'research' skills improved exactly?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your effort to be a critical thinker, you have actually gone too far and it has backfired on you.

Well at least you're not at risk of that!

[peacegirl]

This article is really what it boils down to.

We’re “Anti-Vaxers” Because We Don’t Have a Choice

Newborn babies are often injected with a vaccine within hours of being born by aggressive nurses.
The line has been drawn. There are pro-vaxers on one side and anti-vaxers on the other.

Let’s look at each side. The website, ProCon [1], sums it up pretty well.

PRO-VAXERS
All children should be vaccinated according to the AAP schedule.

There should be no exemptions because unvaccinated children risk public health.

Vaccines prevent serious illnesses and death and have, throughout history, eradicated diseases.

Vaccines are 90 to 99 percent effective. If a vaccinated child does get a disease, it’s milder and less serious.

Vaccines are safe. They do not cause autism.

The risks of not being vaccinated outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Vaccines generate about $20 billion a year in the U.S.

Vaccines save society money. Every dollar spent on vaccines saves the public $18.40, or $42 billion, in medical costs, missed work, disability, and death. (This amount is from a 2003 article. I’m not sure if it is accurate for today and whether it’s a per-year figure or not.) [2]


ANTI-VAXERS
Parents should have the right to make an informed choice about vaccines, including refusing them. The government shouldn’t intervene.

Forcing parents with religious beliefs against vaccines to vaccinate their children violates their First Amendment rights.

Many diseases were eradicated or almost eradicated before vaccines were available, mostly due to better hygiene and nutrition and clean water.

Vaccines create artificial immunity, which damages the natural immune system and leaves children more susceptible to diseases of all kinds. Diseases strengthen the immune system and leads to natural immunity. Recent disease outbreaks, such as measles and whooping cough, are mostly among vaccinated children.

Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal reactions. They can lead to autoimmune disorders and cancer as well as brain inflammation, which can cause autism or death in some children.

Since diseases aren’t usually life threatening, the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits.

The lifetime cost to care for a person with autism is approximately $3 million.

NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED
Many so-called anti-vaxers are really not against all vaccines. Most of the people I talk to would like to see a schedule that includes only absolutely necessary vaccines that are safe, given one at a time, spaced out, and started later (definitely skipping the hep B vaccine at birth). They have reasonable questions and concerns about the safety of the current schedule. If forced into an all-or-nothing choice, they say no to all of them. Hence, anti-vaxers. This is neither fair nor reasonable. If you question the safety of Tylenol for your young child, are you anti-Tylenol? If you question whether your five-year-old should be allowed to have a Nintendo DS, are you anti-DS? If you have questions and concerns about starting your child with diabetes on insulin, are you anti-insulin? If you’re looking for a new car and asking questions at car dealerships or doing research online about safety, are you anti-car?

Why can’t you just have questions about the safety and necessity of injecting dozens of known toxins into your baby’s bloodstream? More than four dozen doses from birth through kindergarten. Who wouldn’t question that?

Why isn’t there another option when it comes to vaccines? Such as pro-safe or pro-choice? Here’s something I’ve personally never understood. Unborn babies can be legally murdered on the grounds that the mother has the right to have an abortion. She has that choice. But if a mother chooses to not vaccinate her child, she risks the child being taken from her, vaccinated against her will, or thrown out of school.

ASK ANYWAY
If you dare to ask questions, you’ll be called all kinds of things. You’ll be an official anti-vaxer. If you are a parent who is pondering vaccines, I strongly suggest that you risk the putdowns and the label and ask yourself—and your doctor—these questions.

What is the incidence of all these diseases my child is being vaccinated against?

What’s the chance that he will contract one (or more) of them?

If he does, what’s the chance that he will suffer a serious and possibly permanent illness or death? (I’m talking about children who have access to clean water and food, not children who are starving and dying in the streets of a third-world country. At the risk of being a target of Bill Gates’ new anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system [3], I’ll ask this question: Instead of planning to vaccinate all those children, how about feeding them and giving them clean water?)

How can all children need the same vaccines in the same dose? How can a 7-pound baby be given the same dose as a 200-pound man? How can one size possibly fit all?

What is the chance of my child suffering a serious adverse reaction and maybe even dying after getting a vaccine or a combination of vaccines? (For some answers, you don’t have to look any further than the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [4] and the Federal Vaccine Court which, by the way, has paid more than $2 billion to families of vaccine-injured children since 1989. [5] How does our government create a FEDERAL VACCINE COURT and still deny a link between vaccines and autism? It’s ludicrous.)

Why hasn’t our government funded a study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children? That’s the first thing you think they would have done. If they are so sure it would prove that vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, wouldn’t they have done it by now? And why has there never been a study on the safety of the combination of vaccines given to a child at the same time? Here’s why. Because they know what the studies will show. And that is that the incidence of autism is far less in unvaccinated children. That they are healthier overall than vaccinated children. That none of the ingredients in one vaccine is safe, let alone all the ingredients in the combination of vaccines. And when all these truths come out, their multi-billion-dollar industry will crumble.

FOLLOW THE $20 BILLION TRAIL
I’m tired of the name calling and insults. Not that I’m personally offended, but it’s a waste of time and energy and doesn’t begin to address the problem. We are forced to be all or nothing. We either get our kids all the recommended vaccines or we’re anti-vaxers. If we question the safety or necessity of vaccines and choose not to vaccinate our kids, we’re putting other children’s lives in danger. We belong to a cult. We are conspiracy theorists. We have blood on our hands. We are ignorant.

Here’s my response. All of us ignorant cult members/conspiracy theorists with blood on our hands are following the money trail. The $20 billion trail. We follow the studies claiming that it’s been proven that vaccines do not cause autism. We know they are often funded by the vaccine manufacturers. We know that the articles describing such studies are written by doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies. We know that Paul Offit made somewhere between $13 and $35 million off his rotavirus vaccine patents. [6] We know that the AAP receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies. [7] We know that Bill Gates pays the media and groups that write medical articles to portray him in a positive, almost “saintly,” light for his global vaccination campaign. [8] We know that in 2011 Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier made more than $13 million. [9] These are just a few examples, but the evidence is clear. The people who promote vaccines are making big bucks.

People who question the necessity and safety of vaccines aren’t getting a piece of the pie. For the most part, they are parents of kids with autism, and they’re broke or soon will be. There’s no financial gain for them in vaccines. They have no hidden agenda. Their purpose is to help their own children as well as other families with vaccine-injured children. The CDC can’t say the same thing. The AAP can’t. Neither can the FDA. No one else can. Just follow the $20 billion trail.

WHAT’S IN A WORD?
We can be called cult members and conspiracy theorists. Whatever. We’re not letting anyone inject our children with toxins. If that makes us anti-vaxers, then so be it.

“If you mixed mercury, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and formaldehyde with viruses, then got a syringe and injected it into your child, you would be arrested and sent to jail for child endangerment and abuse. Then why is it legal for doctors to do it? And why would you let them?” [10]

- See more at: We’re “Anti-Vaxers� Because We Don’t Have a Choice

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This article is really what it boils down to.

<snip>

- See more at...

You just quoted an entire article again. What did you just say about sharpening your skills?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just quoted an entire article again. What did you just say about sharpening your skills?

This discussion is basically over. I know people have not looked at any of my links, so it doesn't really matter whether I posted it or not. Anyway, I am trying to learn about flaws in research design, and it's very interesting:

THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY

Flaws in research designs are associated most with internal validity (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979).

An Assessment of Research Designs in Strategic Management Research 351
the results of a study can be attributed to treatments [variables] rather than flaws
in the research design” (Vogt, 1993, p. 114). Studies with high internal validity
provide results that are not subject to flaws whereas designs with low internal
validity produce results that are subject to third-variable effects and confounds
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Spector, 1991). Internal
validity is most affected by how research designs account for several factors,
including history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection,
mortality, selection-interaction effects and ambiguity about the direction of causal
inference (Campbell, 1957; Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979;
Spector, 1981).
The failure to control for any one of these factors, known as “threats to internal
validity,” can produce flaws.

http://mgt.buffalo.edu/departments/o...undi/bergh.pdf

[peacegirl]

This is funny!

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would be leery of telling anyone what to do, but in this world there are so many lies that I will research the issue and try to get accurate information. I will also discuss this issue with my son who is going to have a child in January. Since you asked me this question, let me ask you: How would you feel if you gave the wrong advice LadyShea since you seem to know so much?

Most people that ask for my advice do so because they have confidence in my research abilities and judgement. And, I don't give unsolicited advice.

You told me you had sent articles to your sons about vaccine dangers. Were you asked to participate in a discussion or to offer your thoughts, or did you volunteer the information in an effort to persuade?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nature does not take sides. There are problems in our world that are difficult to solve, but to think that vaccines are going to save everyone from disease rather than creating a healthy environment where poor people get adequate nutrition, pure water, and a clean living space, is misguided, and may be creating a different kind of epidemic.

Did clean living space, adequate nutrition, and clean water prevent you from getting a chronic illness? Why didn't God protect you?

Just as too many antibiotics are creating Superbugs, the same thing could be happening here.

Nature, or God if you prefer, is creating antibiotic resistant bacteria via evolution. So God is protecting His creation...the bacteria. Survival of the fittest. Before vaccines, the diseases were keeping the human population in check. My bets are on Nature kicking our ass Herself, by new diseases or strains, not on the vaccines being our doom.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You frustrate me, that's all. I obviously get satisfaction debating you. In doing so I have sharpened my research skills, so thank you for that. But when you say certain things, I get irked because you come off like you have all the answers which you don't. You have told me all along that I'm making assertions when it comes to the book, which I'm not. You have told me that greater satisfaction is a tautology and modal fallacy, which neither are. You even have used mockery at times to further your personal agenda which is to discredit Lessans. In your effort to be a critical thinker, you have actually gone too far and it has backfired on you.

LOL, more assertions. You've never refuted the charge of tautology (and in fact conceded that the satisfaction principle is tautological) and have never refuted the charge of modal fallacy...other than saying, as you did here, "is not".

I have no interest in discrediting Lessans...he has no credit to lose. My agenda is to point out bullshit where I see it, and you and Lessans are swimming in it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is basically over. I know people have not looked at any of my links, so it doesn't really matter whether I posted it or not.

What do the length of our conversation or looking at your links have to do with your continued copyright infringement? Why did you post another article in full, even after acknowledging that this is the one way in which you could get yourself banned?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is basically over. I know people have not looked at any of my links, so it doesn't really matter whether I posted it or not. Anyway, I am trying to learn about flaws in research design, and it's very interesting:

THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY

Flaws in research designs are associated most with internal validity (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979).

An Assessment of Research Designs in Strategic Management Research 351
the results of a study can be attributed to treatments [variables] rather than flaws
in the research design” (Vogt, 1993, p. 114). Studies with high internal validity
provide results that are not subject to flaws whereas designs with low internal
validity produce results that are subject to third-variable effects and confounds
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Spector, 1991). Internal
validity is most affected by how research designs account for several factors,
including history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection,
mortality, selection-interaction effects and ambiguity about the direction of causal
inference (Campbell, 1957; Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979;
Spector, 1981).
The failure to control for any one of these factors, known as “threats to internal
validity,” can produce flaws.

http://mgt.buffalo.edu/departments/o...undi/bergh.pdf

Some studies are flawed or badly designed. Do you think you are able to read any given study and find the flaws?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, more assertions. You've never refuted the charge of tautology (and in fact conceded that the satisfaction principle is tautological) and have never refuted the charge of modal fallacy...other than saying, as you did here, "is not".

I actually took that word out, but it's too late since you already copied it. It might be a tautology in the sense that whatever one chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you are using this as a means to discredit his entire presentation, which it doesn't. A tautology does not a false proof make, nor does it prove that what comes from this understanding is meaningless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no interest in discrediting Lessans...he has no credit to lose. My agenda is to point out bullshit where I see it, and you and Lessans are swimming in it.

There you go again badmouthing him. What do you mean he has no credit to lose? The fact that you call this knowledge bullshit shows me what a self-pontificating person you are. You obviously are not as smart as you think you are. You are too full of yourself, and it's really sad because you have the capability of comprehending this work if you kept an open mind and didn't use your present knowledge and understanding to make this determination.

[LadyShea]

This is full of fallacies and lies, can you spot them?

Let’s look at each side. The website, ProCon [1], sums it up pretty well.

PRO-VAXERS
All children should be vaccinated according to the AAP schedule.

There should be no exemptions because unvaccinated children risk public health.

Vaccines prevent serious illnesses and death and have, throughout history, eradicated diseases.

Vaccines are 90 to 99 percent effective. If a vaccinated child does get a disease, it’s milder and less serious.

Vaccines are safe. They do not cause autism.

The risks of not being vaccinated outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Vaccines generate about $20 billion a year in the U.S.

Vaccines save society money. Every dollar spent on vaccines saves the public $18.40, or $42 billion, in medical costs, missed work, disability, and death. (This amount is from a 2003 article. I’m not sure if it is accurate for today and whether it’s a per-year figure or not.) [2]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Most people that ask for my advice do so because they have confidence in my research abilities and judgement. And, I don't give unsolicited advice.

It is great that people trust your advice, but what I have learned is that people aren't always looking for advice; they are looking for support. And that begs the question: What would you do if you advised someone to get his child vaccinated according to the new schedule, but instead of being helped, the baby got a violent reaction immediately following the shot? How would you feel? Would you say that your recommendation, although well-meaning, was not appropriate? Would you try to justify the advice you gave by convincing yourself that it was accurate and that the shot had nothing to do with the child's sudden onset of debilitating symptoms? Or would the thought that there could be a connection continue to bother you, even though you wouldn't admit it to anyone, because you were the one that gave the advice?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You told me you had sent articles to your sons about vaccine dangers. Were you asked to participate in a discussion or to offer your thoughts, or did you volunteer the information in an effort to persuade?

I did not try to persuade him; I just wanted him to see both sides of this issue. But it's his decision to make, not mine. Just like you, he refused to go to any of the websites I told him about because he felt they had an agenda. He wants to look at the objective studies. He, like you, depends on these double-blind studies that can be flawed, but he is softening a bit and he told me that he will listen to both sides before making any decisions. I just want what is the best for his new baby. I'll actually show you the email. I don't think I am betraying any confidence.

My son sent me this link and I sent him this documented case:

Autism-Vaccine Link: Evidence Doesn't Dispel Doubts

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that “the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer.”

Bailey’s diagnosis is Pervasive Developmental Disorder — Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) which has been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by CDC, HRSA and the other federal health agencies since at least the 1990s.

In his conclusion, Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

The Bailey decision is not an isolated ruling. We now know of at least two other successful ADEM cases argued in Vaccine Court. More significantly, an explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many of these cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder. In each of these cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys made the same tactical decision made by Bailey Bank’s lawyer, electing to opt out of the highly charged Omnibus Autism Proceedings and argue their autism cases in the regular vaccine court. In many other successful cases, attorneys elected to steer clear of the hot button autism issue altogether and seek recovery instead for the underlying brain damage that caused their client’s autism.

Autism News | Exploring Vaccines

I wrote: Just wondering why this is a much better report than the reports that I sent you? You just happen to put more trust in a webmd website, although these are not empirical studies. They are opinions that are clearly protecting their own interests. Where is the evidence that there is absolutely no connection between vaccines (the MMR) and children who decline shortly thereafter? Your bias is blinding you.

He wrote back: I just said that the webmd article was a good summary of the issue. I am not putting trust in any particular site or opinion. I am putting trust in conclusions that are based on scientific evidence, whether that's for or against immunization. My point is that you can find arguments on both sides of the debate, but why'd really matters is the truth and not which side is right.


--

[Spacemonkey]

I'd be interested to see any email exchanges you've had with your son on the topic of Lessans' book, especially light and vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some studies are flawed or badly designed. Do you think you are able to read any given study and find the flaws?

I do, but I will get better at it as I go along. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the discovery because empirical testing was not what was used to come to this finding which is a universal law. I know what is in the back of everyone's mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd be interested to see any email exchanges you've had with your son on the topic of Lessans' book, especially light and vision.

I haven't had any in-depth discussions with him on this topic. He takes a skeptical view on everything, just like you do. He is looking forward to getting the book, which I have reserved for him and my other children. They are paying me full price for the book as a send off of good wishes that this will be just the beginning of good things to come.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is full of fallacies and lies, can you spot them?

I didn't check the accuracy of these comments. Maybe they were over-exaggerated to show the reason why parents are being called anti-vaxers. Why don't you tell me what the flaws were so I don't have to go scrambling trying to find trivial mistakes that have no bearing on the point she was making.