 |
  |
09-26-2013, 04:14 PM
|
 |
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Oh dear. There is someone who think Mike Adams is corrupt. This justifies disregarding all research, opinion and reasoning offered by anyone who has anything to do with health advocacy and alternative medicine. Because, you know, of the corruption in Big Alternate Pharma. They all just cover for each other.
|
09-26-2013, 04:14 PM
|
 |
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's not as refined. Dogs can see shapes which is why they recognize other dogs, but that does not mean they can identify subtle differences in facial structure, which require an ability they don't have.
|
And how do you know this, or are you just saying it because Lessans said it?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
09-26-2013, 04:43 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So far, we have seen some fairly compelling evidence that there is in fact no autism epidemic. I see no major flaws or criticisms for the studies that were quoted.
|
Just as you don't trust the woo's; I don't trust the medical establishment, not with a ten foot pole. You see no major flaws or criticisms for the studies that were quoted, and I do. |
It is not a matter of trust: it is a matter of methodology. The woo's, as you accurately name them, use unscientific methods that lead to confusing results.
|
That is just not true. It is your bias against them that is saying this. The word woo itself is a derogatory term and meant to belittle. I see this a lot in these type forums. I don't see it nearly as much in new age forums. I wonder why this is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The studies I mentioned do not: I checked and I see no obvious flaws there. I have found no criticism of the studies by other people either. Now of course I am not an expert, but it was very easy to find very obvious flaws in the material you quoted.
|
That was one study, and the results that came from this one study, just as one empirical test does not prove anything. The empirical test might look airtight, but how many times have the results been overturned by unknown factors that ended up having an influence on the outcome?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You basically admit that you do not trust "the medical establishment" because you are biased against it.
|
I get to choose as a parent what I want injected in my child, and the medical establishment has no right to override those rights regardless of which side I'm on. You keep forgetting what this discussion is about.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The same things that apply to autism also apply to the many other afflictions that are apparently affecting so many more children now than before.
|
Could it be because the testing is more accurate?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Yes. Which means that there are not more cases in the population. It just means more cases are detected, diagnosed, and registered so that they become visible for medical research. That was in fact a part of my point.
|
If that is true, which I am not convinced of, I will use this information to help me make an informed choice even if my intuition still tells me not to vaccinate (I am speaking for parents in general since my children are grown and have children of their own).
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I am not aware of any evidence in favor of children being sicker.
|
Well now you've become aware.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Please to present the evidence.
|
I've been offering evidence. Have you listened to any of the videos I presented? This discussion is going nowhere because no one seems to be keen on hearing the other side. Could it be they are afraid it will force them to confront their own bias on this subject?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So does this change your belief that children are sicker than before, or not?
|
It appears that more children have allergies and asthma than ever before. Whether this is due to vaccinations is yet to be seen, but something is definitely going on.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Then we have no reason to believe there is a link between vaccines and these (alleged) increases and this argument is dealt with as well.
|
YOU have no reason to doubt. I do. But don't worry, you will be free to trust the government's mandate. Nobody (government or no government) in a free country has the right to demand that you NOT vaccinate your child if you believe the benefits outweigh the risks; and no one has a right to tell me TO vaccinate my child if I believe the risks outweigh the benefits. This is the central argument. Freedom of choice.
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-26-2013 at 05:24 PM.
|
09-26-2013, 05:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
|
Well I have seen evidence and I will gather it to make my case. How's that? |
That would be great, provided you don't think evidence is some shit somebody said once that you agree with. I would like actual evidence. |
The problem is that what you use as evidence does not always give a true picture of the risks involved. So many studies are flawed due to variables that are unknown, that the conclusions based on those studies are virtually useless. |
I am asking you to present evidence that supports your argument. Surely there is some beyond mere speculation? Surely there is something more than "I think they are corrupt because I disagree with them in some fundamental way." What is the charge of CDC corruption and conflict of interest based on? Have whistleblowers come forward with internal documents? Lets see those. Has proof of financial ties been found between higher ups in the CDC and a major vaccine producer? Let's see that.
I certainly don't expect evidence of corruption to be based on studies. What kind of studies could those even be? Risks of what? What flaws are you talking about? This is about calling the CDC specifically full of corruption and conflicts of interest.
I am going to ask you again, probably just for you to ignore it again, what criteria do you use to evaluate the veracity or likelihood of the statements people make? What criteria do you use to try to evaluate people's biases and agendas? What criteria do you use to try to evaluate evidence that is presented to you? |
Added to previous post:
An interesting article on the corruption of one person in the CDC. This does not implicate everyone as being corrupt but it does make you wonder if there aren't more bad apples in the bunch.
Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)
Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)
|
09-26-2013, 07:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
ImmunEYES 1 - YouTube
&list=PLXk9zO8ZEabrZgwKl4YSIvFZ8CsnI6wyk
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-26-2013 at 08:23 PM.
|
09-26-2013, 09:20 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
|
A little perspective is in order, the EPA not allowing left over vaccine makes a lot of sense since it is medical waste and medical waste should not be allowed in a land fill. Just a little perspective on what might be considered as hazardous waste with restrictions on disposal. My nephew has a business cutting grass (along with other landscaping) and if he collects the grass clippings, they are considered hazardous waste, at least they were a few years ago, with restrictions on where he could dump them.
I also noted that in the 2nd video, it was Dr Oz's wife who would not allow the vaccine, the Dr did get vaccinated. Just a bit of misrepresentation.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
09-26-2013, 10:26 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-27-2013 at 01:20 AM.
|
09-26-2013, 11:01 PM
|
 |
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
What an ignorant, pathetic asshole you are, peacegirl.
Hey, peacegirl, shall I e-mail Phil Plait, who spent years working on the Hubble Telescope, your father's ideas on light and sight? Hm? Want to know what he says?
|
09-26-2013, 11:52 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
|
Don't you know that an article like this, and whatever Phil Plait has to say will be invisible or inaudible to Peacegirl. She simply won't see or hear it, willful ignorance.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
09-27-2013, 12:46 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I was driving in my car and almost home when I heard a commercial saying "Come on in and get your flu shot; 10% off your next purchase." This was Safeway, a grocery store. Hey, why not? They want to get in on the action. Vaccinations are becoming big business. Flu shots are so profitable that it has become extremely competitive and they are now showing up in places that you would never expect them to be offered. After hearing this commercial, I got a phone call from someone doing a survey (I don't usually pick up the phone when I don't recognize the number but for some reason I did, and held on long enough to hear what she had to say). Of all things, she was doing a survey on vaccines, specifically the hib vaccine. I couldn't believe my ears. Because I didn't have children in the home, I wasn't eligible to answer the questions. I must say this was very coincidental. What I am realizing is that vaccines are making a lot of people rich, which makes this issue over safety more important than ever.
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-27-2013 at 01:41 PM.
|
09-27-2013, 01:46 AM
|
 |
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
09-27-2013, 01:53 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[/I]
&list=TLY9p_JnEIvrYkhqwWqK5mk-aSUGzcfA69
&list=TLY9p_JnEIvrYkhqwWqK5mk-aSUGzcfA69
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-27-2013 at 06:36 PM.
|
09-27-2013, 02:55 AM
|
 |
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Why do you think those people make videos instead of doing scientific experiments and publishing their conclusions in a format that can be studied and easily referred back to?
I am not watching hours of video. Either you pull out the evidence that can be analyzed and verified or admit it's just talking heads.
|
09-27-2013, 03:03 AM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
There are a lot of participants who would probably offer their thoughts but won't because of the nature of this thread.
|
LOL, are you back to believing in imaginary readers too scared to post? |
Where did I ever mention numbers? |
"a lot"
|
09-27-2013, 04:32 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I just had a conversation with my daughter about vaccinations for 2 of my grandchildren. I don't have anything definite to say about the contents of the vaccines except that I would agree that more testing should be done.
On the matter of pressuring parents to have children vaccinated, it seems that there are some in the medical profession who do not believe the parents should have a choice and vaccines should be given in all cases. My daughter knows of at least one mother who refused to allow her children to be vaccinated, and then was refused as a patient of that doctor. When the shots are recommended the papers that are supposed to be given out before the shots are at times difficult to get. Parents need to ask and insist that they get the material to read before the shots are given. And in some cases when the shots are refused, there is a negative reaction from the professionals involved, both medical and educational. There is a general attitude that if the parent does not allow the vaccines, they are less than good parents. The exemption forms do not seem to be readily available and the parent needs to go to some effort to get them.
It is not the case that vaccination is mandatory, but those in positions of authority are making it difficult to not get children vaccinated. And this attitude is not conducive to free choice.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
09-27-2013, 11:12 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Quote:
|
It is not a matter of trust: it is a matter of methodology. The woo's, as you accurately name them, use unscientific methods that lead to confusing results.
|
That is just not true. It is your bias against them that is saying this. The word woo itself is a derogatory term and meant to belittle. I see this a lot in these type forums. I don't see it nearly as much in new age forums. I wonder why this is.
|
You used the term woo. I just agreed that it is fitting. And I have carefully explained the criticisms of their research methods every time. Unlike you I do not just spout unsubstantiated opinions: I do my homework. Unless bias is somehow causing the huge flaws in their research?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The studies I mentioned do not: I checked and I see no obvious flaws there. I have found no criticism of the studies by other people either. Now of course I am not an expert, but it was very easy to find very obvious flaws in the material you quoted.
|
That was one study, and the results that came from this one study, just as one empirical test does not prove anything. The empirical test might look airtight, but how many times have the results been overturned by unknown factors that ended up having an influence on the outcome?
|
2 tests, actually. If you actually read the link, you would see that one studied the question "If we revisited data from 1985, how many people simply labelled "mentally retarded" would now be labelled "Autistic" according to current diagnostic methodology?
The other one studies "What is the rate at which autism appears in different age groups"
The conclusions from both, as well as the oldest data we have, suggests a steady 1% incidence rate since the 1950's.
And because of the scandal around the fraudulent study that suggested a link in the first place there actually have been quite a few more.
But hey, evidence that you do not like can simply be ignored because the chances that it is correct are less than 100% as usual? Whereas any shoddy and flawed study that confirms your bias is yet another reason to hold on to your beliefs in the face of ever-growing evidence to the contrary. It is your standard MO really.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You basically admit that you do not trust "the medical establishment" because you are biased against it.
|
I get to choose as a parent what I want injected in my child, and the medical establishment has no right to override those rights regardless of which side I'm on. You keep forgetting what this discussion is about.
|
I see you do not disagree. I am glad you simply admit to preferring your bias to evidence.
Tell me again how there will be no bias in the Brave New World?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Yes. Which means that there are not more cases in the population. It just means more cases are detected, diagnosed, and registered so that they become visible for medical research. That was in fact a part of my point.
|
If that is true, which I am not convinced of, I will use this information to help me make an informed choice even if my intuition still tells me not to vaccinate (I am speaking for parents in general since my children are grown and have children of their own).
|
I doubt that. You have been impervious to reason before, and simply follow your bias.
Do not get me wrong: I am pretty sure that fraud, bias and good old corruption do exist in evidence-based medicine same as everywhere else. I just do not think that it is rational to disregard whatever I do not like on the basis that this is so.
Look at the example of your friend Mike the Health Ranger. Is one persons opinion that he may have a conflict of interest enough to disregard everything he says?
Of course not. There are lots of completely different reasons to do exactly that, but this is not one of them.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I am not aware of any evidence in favor of children being sicker.
|
Well now you've become aware.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Please to present the evidence.
|
I've been offering evidence. Have you listened to any of the videos I presented? This discussion is going nowhere because no one seems to be keen on hearing the other side. Could it be they are afraid it will force them to confront their own bias on this subject?
|
Whenever you linked to any "evidence", it was easily demolished. Often you showed too little understanding of any of the relevant subjects such as the immune system to come to an informed conclusion in any case. However, you consistently ignore this and just move to the next piece of nonsense from a different site, never ever changing your mind.
Sorry, but I do not have the time, opportunity or inclination to sit through long videos. Please break it down into a short abstract, link to relevant information and the studies mentioned, and I will have a look.
So far there is only one thing that your anti-vaxxer links contained that turned out to be (kind of) correct, and I would like to discuss it in some detail to point out the problem of competency and evaluating claims.
There does seem to be a link between a certain h1n1 vaccine used in Sweden and Finland and an elevated chance of narcolepsy. In a few months we should see the results of some follow-up tests that look into it more closely. If these show similar results then we will have pretty conclusive evidence that one type of h1n1 vaccine which uses 2 types of adjuvants causes 3 more people per 100.000 to develop the affliction. The background incidence is 1 per 100.000.
However, the story gets more complicated and more interesting still: a study done about a different vaccine in a group of Chinese people afflicted by h1n1 also found an elevated level of narcolepsy... but found no link to the vaccine.
Puzzling, no?
It becomes less of a mystery when we keep in mind that back in 2009 a study by Dr Mignon finally confirmed that narcolepsy is an auto-immune disease, and identified the specific immune cell responsible. The same strange quadrupling of the incidence rate happens after flu outbreaks.
What seems to be going on is the following: some people have an immune system that gives them a propensity to produce a certain immune cell that, when produced in numbers, can start a chain reaction. In very simple and rather imprecise terms, these cells do a small amount of damage, which makes the body respond in the only way it knows how: by making more immune cells. I think you can see the problem there.
And there lies the problem: adjuvants are designed to stimulate the immune system into responding more strongly. Great for immunization: a stronger reaction means more of the appropriate antibodies get produced. Not so great if you have a dormant auto-immune disease: it is your own immune system that actually does the damage in that case.
Any situation that makes the immune system work harder can trigger the disease. So what we are seeing here is not a vaccine causing a disease. It is a vaccine triggering a dormant one. And it may very well be that a milder vaccine that does not use any adjuvants would be better for these particular people than the one the used in Sweden.
Studies below for your enjoyment:
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2011/august/narcolepsy.html
Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder, Stanford researcher says - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine
Isn't doing your homework fun? I find this all extremely interesting.
Now guess how the vaccine-alarmists report all this? You got it in one:
VACCINES CAUSE 400% RISE IN NARCOLEPSY!1!!1!
A wonderful demonstration of how, without a basic ground level of competency (or honesty!) you can grossly misinterpret medical and scientific information, especially if you have an axe to grind.
Quote:
|
YOU have no reason to doubt. I do. But don't worry, you will be free to trust the government's mandate. Nobody (government or no government) in a free country has the right to demand that you NOT vaccinate your child if you believe the benefits outweigh the risks; and no one has a right to tell me TO vaccinate my child if I believe the risks outweigh the benefits. This is the central argument. Freedom of choice.
|
Yes, you do have a reason: your bias. It makes you favor information that you already agree with over information that you do not like. It is a rather interesting example of the way conspiracy theories,
|
09-27-2013, 01:04 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
|
Well I have seen evidence and I will gather it to make my case. How's that? |
That would be great, provided you don't think evidence is some shit somebody said once that you agree with. I would like actual evidence. |
The problem is that what you use as evidence does not always give a true picture of the risks involved. So many studies are flawed due to variables that are unknown, that the conclusions based on those studies are virtually useless. |
I am asking you to present evidence that supports your argument. Surely there is some beyond mere speculation? Surely there is something more than "I think they are corrupt because I disagree with them in some fundamental way." What is the charge of CDC corruption and conflict of interest based on? Have whistleblowers come forward with internal documents? Lets see those. Has proof of financial ties been found between higher ups in the CDC and a major vaccine producer? Let's see that.
I certainly don't expect evidence of corruption to be based on studies. What kind of studies could those even be? Risks of what? What flaws are you talking about? This is about calling the CDC specifically full of corruption and conflicts of interest.
I am going to ask you again, probably just for you to ignore it again, what criteria do you use to evaluate the veracity or likelihood of the statements people make? What criteria do you use to try to evaluate people's biases and agendas? What criteria do you use to try to evaluate evidence that is presented to you? |
Oh my goodness, I have given you videos of evidence that they found against these institutions. Have you not listened to any of them? Are you cherry picking what you read? Obviously you are. Now I have to backtrack to find these links. And this time will you please listen to them? I know I'm guilty of this also because I don't have that much time, but I try to save whatever people post (including me) to read later. Maybe that's what you're doing. That being said, I believe the sources I gave are credible. The interview with an FDA employee came from someone who worked there. What more do you want? There are now people coming forward regarding the honesty of the CDC. I do not believe these institutions are perfectly transparent. This interview was about the FDA, but there is evidence that there's a problem with the CDC also. I will try to find the evidence that supports this. You can discount anybody's testimony if you want to, but why would these people risk being ostracized and losing their jobs if they didn't think this was important for the public to know? If the FDA is this corrupt, how can you trust any of these institutions? But more importantly there is evidence that these corrupt practices are really happening. Are you just going to ignore them, or take a serious look even if it cracks your pro-government armor just a little bit.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/...at%20the%20fda
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2005/...at%20the%20fda |
Videos of people talking are not evidence of anything except their own statements of opinion and suspicion. Feel free to transcribe the specific parts of those videos that you feel are hard evidence. |
No, I am not doing anymore. This is an account of what this man saw going on in the FDA. If you don't want to hear the testimony of a former employee by reading what he had to say, then don't read it. I searched for this article, copied and pasted it for your convenience, and you're still not happy. I am not here to convince you to take sides; you have to do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.
|
09-27-2013, 01:12 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
I thought it was posited in Declaration of Independence.
|
You could read it, you know. You are what...over 60? Have you never read the DoI all the way through? Welcome to OurDocuments.gov |
Wow, I can't believe how judgmental you are. And what the *#$* does my age have to do with anything? Do you think you're better than me or smarter than me if I didn't read the DoI all the way through? What are you trying to prove LadyShea? All of your insults are just another effort to get people to have doubts about the book. That's what it boils down to, and it's not working. |
I am surprised that in 6 decades one wouldn't care enough to read the foundational documents of the society he/she lives in, or discuss them with their children, or have studied them in school. It's like you're an alien to me. Maybe lots of people are ignorant like that, though. That so many are credulous, and suckered in by rhetoric and don't bother to investigate anything or demand hard evidence indicates that is probably the case. |
LadyShea, you are alien to me. You really have a lot of chuzpah. Do you know what that means? Your effort to never be suckered into rhetoric is actually hurting you. You are so hardened, and so suspicious of everyone, that you can't let your guard down for a second to even hear what someone has to say. I am so glad you are not on the council that hears people who have been hurt by vaccines. You would crush them by rejecting their pain and suffering as being nothing more than an opinion that their children were hurt by these vaccines since they didn't have documents proving that their children went into convulsions, or had other terrible symptoms, an hour after the shot.
|
09-27-2013, 01:16 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Corruption at Natural News! This man has evidence that Mike Adams secretly works for Monsanto and Al Gore! He promotes Soy which causes cancer according to this person! 
10-20-2012 The Case Against Mike Adams “Health Ranger” | DISMANTLE THE BEAM PROJECT
Quote:
|
Mike Adams convinces the reader with his illusionary writing style that the US is far less dangerous than Ecuador In an article just 17 days before Barack Obama signed the NDAA (National Defense Authoritarian Act) into Law in the 11th hour in Hawaii (completely untouchable) on December 31, 2011, Adams spits out rhetoric that could possibly make sense, if one was naive enough, however after this law was cemented in place, he has yet to retract that article written especially for prisonplanet. What, does Alex Jones agree with Adams? Sure he does – planting ideas before an event is how the training of the mind is achieved.. the sheeple will never realize the tactic.
|
More about Mike Adams! OMG! 
The Legend of Mike Adams and the Reality
More corruption!
Quote:
NeuroLogica Blog » Mike Adams Takes On “Skeptics” Adams, in fact, has recently launched a broadside against “skeptics” ( he consistently uses the scare quotes throughout his article). This seems to have been prompted by a recent trouncing he had concerning the Shorty awards. Orac and Phil Plait have complete descriptions – but briefly, the Shorty awards are for Tweeting. Adams was up in the health category, but it was discovered that there was some ballot stuffing going on, and he was disqualified. Meanwhile, skeptics were alerted to the contest and this resulted in a flood of votes for my colleague, Rachael Dunlop, who was likely to win in any case. (If you already have a Twitter account, you can vote for Dr Rachie here.)
Adams reacted by launching into a rather childish rant, blaming the whole thing (of course) on a huge conspiracy. Even worse, Adams’ fellow “natural” guru – Joseph Mercola, who is also being outvoted for the Shorty award, like a schoolyard bully has decided to attack Rachael Dunlop personally.
|
|
This is just a diversionary tactic to get off of the subject of vaccinations and the potential risk associated with the immediate and cumulative affects. Why is it that you can't stay on topic? When you're losing you go for the jugular when it's not even related to the issue at hand.
http://www.naturalnews.com/041106_US...tion_GMOs.html
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-27-2013 at 01:30 PM.
|
09-27-2013, 01:23 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
why would these people risk being ostracized and losing their jobs if they didn't think this was important for the public to know?
|
Because they're being paid to by the other side? |
Who is being paid? By what side? What the hell are you talking about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because they already lost their job and are disgruntled? Because they never were an employee to begin with and it's all a lie to help line the pockets of the alternative medicine and supplement gurus? Did you investigate these people's claims?
|
If you had read the article you would have seen that he was working at the FDA. He had no affiliation with anyone on "the other side." You are turning into a conspiracy fearmonger. In fact, he knew that if he came forward he would get fired or be ostracized from his fellow employees, which is exactly what happened.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are you cherry picking what you read? Obviously you are. Now I have to backtrack to find these links.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You mean like you have done with all of the links to experiments about dog recognition? Frustrating isn't it? I'll save you some time...I am not watching hours of video in the hopes that what you consider hard evidence is apparent to me. Distill it down to some names and events that can be investigated.
|
I'm not doing anymore than I already have. If you don't want to actually sit and listen to these shocking testimonials, then don't. My goal here is not to persuade LadyShea.
|
09-27-2013, 01:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Dogs can see shapes which is why they recognize other dogs, but that does not mean they can identify subtle differences in facial structure, which require an ability they don't have.
|
When presented with head shots of two different border collies, can you reliably distinguish between them? |
That is exactly right. That is why I said that a better test would be human faces since humans are doing the test and the results can be more easily interpreted.
|
09-27-2013, 01:31 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
I just had a conversation with my daughter about vaccinations for 2 of my grandchildren. I don't have anything definite to say about the contents of the vaccines except that I would agree that more testing should be done.
On the matter of pressuring parents to have children vaccinated, it seems that there are some in the medical profession who do not believe the parents should have a choice and vaccines should be given in all cases. My daughter knows of at least one mother who refused to allow her children to be vaccinated, and then was refused as a patient of that doctor. When the shots are recommended the papers that are supposed to be given out before the shots are at times difficult to get. Parents need to ask and insist that they get the material to read before the shots are given. And in some cases when the shots are refused, there is a negative reaction from the professionals involved, both medical and educational. There is a general attitude that if the parent does not allow the vaccines, they are less than good parents. The exemption forms do not seem to be readily available and the parent needs to go to some effort to get them.
It is not the case that vaccination is mandatory, but those in positions of authority are making it difficult to not get children vaccinated. And this attitude is not conducive to free choice.
|
Do you think free choice should consequence free; automatically supported and condoned? What if a parent chooses to not use car seats? What if a parent chooses to use a strict infant feeding schedule that has been associated with failure to thrive and dehydration ( On Becoming Babywise)? What if a parent chooses to use a discipline method that has been associated with several deaths ( To Train Up a Child)? What of parents who choose to feed their children extremely unhealthy junk food diets that cause the child to become obese? What of those parents who choose to co-sleep with their infants?
Should doctors be forced to take patients whose parents choose things the doctor thinks are dangerous or reckless?
Perhaps you are like most of us, and want your choices supported, but have no problem with the choices of others being limited because those are not things you would choose? Where is the line for free choice drawn?
|
09-27-2013, 01:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Oh dear. There is someone who think Mike Adams is corrupt. This justifies disregarding all research, opinion and reasoning offered by anyone who has anything to do with health advocacy and alternative medicine. Because, you know, of the corruption in Big Alternate Pharma. They all just cover for each other.
|
There is one big difference and that is the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. AND DON'T USE THE ARGUMENT THAT TAKING A CAUTIOUS ATTITUDE TOWARD VACCINES IS MORE HARMFUL TO OUR CHILDREN THAN INJECTING THEM WITH ALL KINDS OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES WITHOUT KNOWING POSITIVELY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE HURT IN THE LONG RUN.
|
09-27-2013, 02:04 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
BTW peacegirl, I am aware of problems in the FDA. I am not pro-government despite your mistaken conclusion about me...remember, I am and will always be pro-evidence. Where the evidence leads, I will follow.
I asked you specifically, several times, for evidence of corruption within the CDC.
|
09-27-2013, 02:04 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
I just had a conversation with my daughter about vaccinations for 2 of my grandchildren. I don't have anything definite to say about the contents of the vaccines except that I would agree that more testing should be done.
On the matter of pressuring parents to have children vaccinated, it seems that there are some in the medical profession who do not believe the parents should have a choice and vaccines should be given in all cases. My daughter knows of at least one mother who refused to allow her children to be vaccinated, and then was refused as a patient of that doctor. When the shots are recommended the papers that are supposed to be given out before the shots are at times difficult to get. Parents need to ask and insist that they get the material to read before the shots are given. And in some cases when the shots are refused, there is a negative reaction from the professionals involved, both medical and educational. There is a general attitude that if the parent does not allow the vaccines, they are less than good parents. The exemption forms do not seem to be readily available and the parent needs to go to some effort to get them.
It is not the case that vaccination is mandatory, but those in positions of authority are making it difficult to not get children vaccinated. And this attitude is not conducive to free choice.
|
Thank you thedoc!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Do you think free choice should consequence free; automatically supported and condoned? What if a parent chooses to not use car seats? What if a parent chooses to use a strict infant feeding schedule that has been associated with failure to thrive and dehydration (On Becoming Babywise)? What if a parent chooses to use a discipline method that has been associated with several deaths (To Train Up a Child)? What of parents who choose to feed their children extremely unhealthy junk food diets that cause the child to become obese? What of those parents who choose to co-sleep with their infants?
Should doctors be forced to take patients whose parents choose things the doctor thinks are dangerous or reckless?
|
You are not giving enough credit to parents, and you cannot simply compare the very real dangers of vaccines to reckless behavior that is not the norm. That is a slick way to justify forcing parents to do what is their right not to do.
Doctors also have to convince themselves that they are right, and when there is dissension it takes away from their power and authority. They don't want their patients debating this issue, because they lose control of their status as doctors who are supposed to know what's best for the patient. Ha!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Perhaps you are like most of us, and want your choices supported, but have no problem with the choices of others being limited because those are not things you would choose? Where is the line for free choice drawn?
|
The line is drawn very clearly. Everybody should have the information available in order to make as free a choice as possible. The information should include all of the up-to-date studies, and the bad reactions that appear to have a causal connection so the parent can decide if the risks outweigh the benefits, or vice versa.
Last edited by peacegirl; 09-27-2013 at 06:33 PM.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.
|
|
 |
|
Linear Mode
