A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Once again, I was not referring to anything the respondants reported in the survey. I was referring to your clearly stated belief that the authors of the survey did not have an agenda. That is certainly an express of your opinion and your opinion as to whether or not they had such an agenda is entirely irrelevant and unsupported by any evidence.

Of course they had an agenda; to find out the rate at which unvaccinated children got sick in comparison to vaccinated children. They had to have a reason for doing the survey, otherwise what was the point? Just because they had an agenda does not mean that the results were tipped in their favor (whatever that was), especially if the respondents weren't selectively chosen but came forward at random.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Is the American Academy of Pediatrics paying doctors to fire their patients? No? Then the doctor who refuse patients is giving up a paying customer. That's like kryptonite to some doctors - especially primary care doctors who operate on thinner margins than specialists.

But that's what my doctor did. He was frustrated with me because I questioned vaccines (the DPT shot in particular) and then I questioned his advice to finish the schedule of medicine my child was on. I guess he felt the effort to keep a patient that wasn't going to be subservient wasn't worth it to him. Nowadays things are different. Parents are encouraged to ask questions, where 30 years ago (I can't believe it's been that long) they were discouraged because doctors were seen as almost godlike, and you don't question god.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The unprincipled stance is to continue to treat patients who represent a potential danger to themselves and others

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a false and misleading allegation that patients represent a potential danger to themselves and others just because they have a different take on vaccines.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

and collect whatever money you can from them. It's also easier to politely ignore the insane rantings of anti-vaccine parents rather than go through the process of firing a patient.

Well he fired me in so many words. He told me it might be best if we part ways. I had to find a new pediatrician, which I did.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

So, yes, it's a bold move, alienating a portion of your patient base.

I don't think it was bold; I think it was cowardly. He couldn't handle me. Maybe I was one of the few who had questions (thanks to my father who taught me to question everything and to take people's opinions with a grain of salt), and maybe at that time there weren't many parents debating him, so he didn't lose his base; just little ole me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they had an agenda; to find out the rate at which unvaccinated children got sick in comparison to vaccinated children. They had to have a reason for doing the survey, otherwise what was the point? Just because they had an agenda does not mean that the results were tipped in their favor (whatever that was), especially if the respondents weren't selectively chosen but came forward at random.

That wasn't the agenda, as I've told you several times. Just like levers that is something you made up and adhere to, but isn't the case at all.

It's an anti-vax site visited almost exclusively by anti-vaxxers. The bias is inherent due to that. It's the same as a poll about raising children secularly would be here at .

[LadyShea]

But even the idea of herd immunity is coming under scrutiny. This is a separate issue that needs further investigation. Also, the whole idea of vaccinations versus natural immunization is being studied to determine which gives a person greater long term immunity.

Long term immunity isn't important to dead children, is it?

• Before 1985, Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib) caused serious infections in 20,000 children each year, including meningitis (12,000 cases) and pneumonia (7,500 cases).1 In 2002, there were 34 cases of Hib disease.
• In the 1964-1965 epidemic, there were 12.5 million cases of rubella (German measles).2 Of the 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded as a result of the infection.2 There were 9 cases of rubella in 2004 and only four cases of congenital rubella between 2001 and 2004.
• Before 1963, more than 3 million cases of measles and 500 deaths from measles were reported each year.2 More than 90% of children had measles by age 15.2 In 2002, there were 44 cases of measles
• In 1952, polio paralyzed more than 21,000 people.2 In 2002, there were no cases of polio in the United States.
• In the early 1940s, there was an average of 175,000 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) per year, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 children annually.2 In 2002, 9,771 cases were reported.
• In the 1920s, there were 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria each year and 13,000 people died from the disease.2 In 2002, there was only one case of diphtheria in the United States.

Vaccine Effectiveness - National Network for Immunization Information

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's discouraged because lots of infants and very young children have died when their sleeping parents rolled over on them and smothered them. A recent report indicated that, in Michigan alone, well over one-hundred children have been killed this way in the past few years.

As with everything (including vaccines), I heavily researched the issue and found the best practices to reduce risk. I felt that co-sleeping was an important way to bond with my adopted child, as I had no natural bond from pregnancy or breastfeeding. It was standard practice for most of human history as well, so helped me feel more connected to my motherhood.

I don't think anyone would suggest an infant be in bed with a parent who could roll over on him while sleeping. I wrote a book on safety for parents, remember?

You didn't do much research then, as it is encouraged by advocates of attachment parenting including some doctors...which is how I even heard of it. Hell most anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind) are pro "family bed".

My point was though, that we all make choices and some of those choices are criticized and dicouraged...yet you seem to think people shouldn't criticize or discourage parents who choose not to vaccinate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That wasn't the agenda, as I've told you several times. Just like levers that is something you made up and adhere to, but isn't the case at all.

It's an anti-vax site visited almost exclusively by anti-vaxxers. The bias is inherent due to that. It's the same as a poll about raising children secularly would be here at .

Okay, I get it. Maybe this survey wasn't reflective of what they were trying to prove. That still does not mean there isn't a vaccine connection between those who are ill more often. I am worried about those children because their lack of robust health doesn't seem to have any direct correlation with vaccines, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. We may need to dig deeper. Until more evidence comes in, I, on behalf of all mothers who want the best for their children, would proceed with caution.

[LadyShea]

You keep mentioning these weaker, sicker children who lack robust health. Who are they? What numbers are you using to support a belief that children are weaker and sicker in general?

Many, many more children live beyond age 5 today than did even 50 years ago. So yes, children who would have gotten ill and died previously because they may be "weaker" are living now...often due to vaccines.

There are children alive today who were born prematurely, who would not have lived beyond infancy had they been born even 20 years ago. The survival rate is due to modern medical practices. This will mean more sicker and weaker children, yes, as preemies often have many problems...some long term.

Again, you have to look at the big picture and not numbers in a vacuum. Maybe you are right and there are more children who are weaker and sicker today than in past generations...but that may be simply because they are alive and not dead as they would have been in earlier generations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Long term immunity isn't important to dead children, is it?

• Before 1985, Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib) caused serious infections in 20,000 children each year, including meningitis (12,000 cases) and pneumonia (7,500 cases).1 In 2002, there were 34 cases of Hib disease.
• In the 1964-1965 epidemic, there were 12.5 million cases of rubella (German measles).2 Of the 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded as a result of the infection.2 There were 9 cases of rubella in 2004 and only four cases of congenital rubella between 2001 and 2004.
• Before 1963, more than 3 million cases of measles and 500 deaths from measles were reported each year.2 More than 90% of children had measles by age 15.2 In 2002, there were 44 cases of measles
• In 1952, polio paralyzed more than 21,000 people.2 In 2002, there were no cases of polio in the United States.
• In the early 1940s, there was an average of 175,000 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) per year, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 children annually.2 In 2002, 9,771 cases were reported.
• In the 1920s, there were 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria each year and 13,000 people died from the disease.2 In 2002, there was only one case of diphtheria in the United States.

Vaccine Effectiveness - National Network for Immunization Information

So much has changed since then, that you can't use this to defend the vaccine schedule given today. You're talking about a half century ago LadyShea, and don't tell me that if we stopped vaccinations today, all of these diseases would come back. More research has to be done. Just to let you know, you are just as biased, or more so, in your beliefs (and they are beliefs) that vaccinations don't cause harm, than I am in believing that they do. Let the best man win.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep mentioning these weaker, sicker children who lack robust health. Who are they? What numbers are you using to support a belief that children are weaker and sicker in general?

Many, many more children live beyond age 5 today than did even 50 years ago. So yes, children who would have gotten ill and died previously because they may be "weaker" are living now...often due to vaccines.

There are children alive today who were born prematurely, who would not have lived beyond infancy had they been born even 20 years ago. The survival rate is due to modern medical practices. This will mean more sicker and weaker children, yes, as preemies have many problems...some long term.

Again, you have to look at the big picture and not numbers in a vacuum. Maybe you are right and there are more children who are weaker and sicker today than in past generations...but that may be simply because they are alive and not dead as they would have been in earlier generations.

No, this is a conclusion that has no merit whatsoever. Have you listened to any of the videos that cite statistics? Why are you so hesitant to even hear what these people have to say? What are you afraid of?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So much has changed since then, that you can't use this to defend the vaccine schedule given today. You're talking about a half century ago LadyShea, and don't tell me that if we stopped vaccinations today, all of these diseases would come back. More research has to be done. Just to let you know, you are just as biased, or more so, in your beliefs (and they are beliefs) that vaccinations don't cause harm, than I am in believing that they do. Let the best man win.

Yes, one of the changes is that we have vaccines against diseases now that we didn't have previously. If we stopped vaccines today those diseases would absolutely come back, because they aren't actually gone. They still exist on the Earth somewhere, they are still out there killing children, and would spread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is a conclusion that has no merit whatsoever.

Of course it has merit. It is definitely a factor. Why on Earth would it not be? C-Sections also seem to correlate with asthma so that might be another factor with the unprecedented number of C-sections done today.

There are many, many things that are different today, as you stated, why do your videos only look at vaccines?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As with everything (including vaccines), I heavily researched the issue and found the best practices to reduce risk. I felt that co-sleeping was an important way to bond with my adopted child, as I had no natural bond from pregnancy or breastfeeding. It was standard practice for most of human history as well, so helped me feel more connected to my motherhood.

You didn't do much research then, as it is encouraged by advocates of attachment parenting including some doctors...which is how I even heard of it. Hell most anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind) are pro "family bed".

Did you survey these people, or are you just taking cheap shots to try to get an edge in this debate? Most people who are the anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind), are also safety conscious individuals (especially when it comes to their children), and would never think of putting their infant in harm's way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My point was though, that we all make choices and some of those choices are criticized and dicouraged...yet you seem to think people shouldn't criticize or discourage parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am saying that as long as there is a risk of harm to a child --- and regardless of the statistics that tell us it's better to vaccinate (which may be misleading because we don't know all the facts) --- to criticize a parent's choice not to vaccinate is putting yourself in harm's way, for if something happens to that child as a result of a vaccine (since we have no way of knowing which child will be harmed at this point), you would feel terribly guilty and have to carry the weight of of responsibility for encouraging the parent to get the child vaccinated. All you can do is give the pros and cons based on the most up-to-date information, and leave it up to the parent. How can you tell a parent that you know what is best when you really don't? In the new world the fact that you will no longer be blamed for hurting someone either intentionally or unintentionally, would compel you to be honest with yourself about the advice you are giving, and you will become like Socrates who was considered the wisest man of his time because he knew that he really didn't know the truth about many things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it has merit. It is definitely a factor. Why on Earth would it not be? C-Sections also seem to correlate with asthma so that might be another factor with the unprecedented number of C-sections done today.

There are many, many things that are different today, as you stated, why do your videos only look at vaccines?

The correlation is strong between vaccinations and certain adverse reactions, especially the ones that occur 1 hour after getting the vaccine. Yes, there are other factors that could contribute to lowered immunity which cause allergies and asthma, and we have to look at all of the possible causes. The only thing I, as a mother, would be worried about is sticking my child with all of these toxins. People who say there's nothing to worry about are often wrong. The fear that something could happen to our child if we don't do as the doctor says is so great that it's hard to overcome. It takes a strong determination to fight City hall, doctors, and most of society, so kudos to those who have the stength to do it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... or are you just taking cheap shots to try to get an edge in this debate?

So you think this has been a debate?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you survey these people, or are you just taking cheap shots to try to get an edge in this debate?

Cheap shots at who? Most who advocate attachment parenting and co-sleeping are natural living type people. As I also practiced a form of attachment parenting, I spent a lot of time reading their literature and forums etc. Check out mothering.com

Most people who are the anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind), are also safety conscious individuals (especially when it comes to their children), and would never think of putting their infant in harm's way.

You have no idea what you are talking about then, because you have not ever looked into attachment parenting and natural family living. The family bed is a central tenet, being considered the most natural way to sleep throughout human history, and even in most of the world today, as it facilitates breastfeeding and synchronizes breathing. Again check out mothering.com, Google "Natural family living and family bed" or just "family bed". Only in modern Western societies are infants separated from their mothers for sleep.

LOL you are the one on the conventional side on this issue and criticizing parents for making their free choice...ironic!

Nurture: Co-sleeping and the Family Bed | Resource guide for Nutrition, Spirituality, Natural and health therapies and Holistic living
The Natural Family Site: Family Bed
Family Bedding
Family Bed And Nighttime Parenting Resources - Mothering Community
Welcome to Attachment Parenting International
6 Benefits of co-sleeping with your children
Balancing Life With Attached Parenting | Nature Moms Blog

[LadyShea]

Since you like celebrities...Mayim Bialik, aka "Blossom" from TV, also earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience at UCLA studying hormones and bonding and OCD. She is a big advocate of natural living and has written a book about it, and co-sleeping is one of her practices.

Hollywood Star Talks About Co-Sleeping, Baby-Wearing and Unschooling - ABC News

I showed her a horrifying public service announcement from Milwaukee equating co-sleeping with putting a baby in bed with a butcher knife. She called it scare mongering and felt that both the PSA and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to have babies sleep in cribs are misguided.

The infant deaths in co-sleeping situations, Mayim says, are a socieo-economic problem that could be solved with better safety education. But while drinking and drugs and lack of safe sleeping equipment is part of the danger of sleeping with kids, so too is being sleep-deprived, which Mayim admitted to being throughout those early nursing months.

She also doesn't vaccinate

Mayim Bialik,- has mostly refused to comment on vaccines other than to say that she doesn't vaccinate her children. A wise choice, since if she were effective at convincing enough people not to vaccinate, herd immunity will be further compromised and her own unvaccinated darlings will be endangered. I'm Coming Out... as Pro-Vaccine | JJ Keith

and is a spokesperson for this group Holistic Moms Network which advocates for cosleeping

2. Seeking respectful and nurturing relationships with others, imparting the values of empathy, love, and compassion to our children, and embracing attachment parenting techniques (including babywearing, extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and positive discipline).

[LadyShea]

Anyway thank you for proving my original point; that you, like most people, have no problems criticizing choices your disagree with but expect respectful silence about your choices that others disagree with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep mentioning these weaker, sicker children who lack robust health. Who are they? What numbers are you using to support a belief that children are weaker and sicker in general?

Many, many more children live beyond age 5 today than did even 50 years ago. So yes, children who would have gotten ill and died previously because they may be "weaker" are living now...often due to vaccines.

There are children alive today who were born prematurely, who would not have lived beyond infancy had they been born even 20 years ago. The survival rate is due to modern medical practices.

I agree with you. There are children with heart problems and other serious congenital problems that survived only because of modern medicine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This will mean more sicker and weaker children, yes, as preemies often have many problems...some long term.

That is also true, but this still doesn't tell us the percentage of children who have become damaged directly or indirectly from vaccine injections either on the first shot or over time. This is a difficult undertaking because of other possible contributing factors, but a pattern is beginning to emerge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, you have to look at the big picture and not numbers in a vacuum. Maybe you are right and there are more children who are weaker and sicker today than in past generations...but that may be simply because they are alive and not dead as they would have been in earlier generations.

That's why I gave you this quote from a doctor in the early 1900's who wrote:

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment
of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many
histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were
vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never
seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have.
They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly
well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

“Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain,
cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical
journals. In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce
encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals, which is characterized by brain
swelling and hemorrhaging.” — Harold E. Buttram, M.D. & F. Edward
Yazbak, M.D.

“The number of vaccination deaths overwhelms disease (pertussis) deaths:
32 in a three year period according to the CDC (1991-94), and only 8
in 1993, the last peak incidence year...Simply put, the vaccine may be
more than 100 times more deadly than the disease.” — Alan Philips,
J.D., Attorney and Counselor at Law (this doesn’t take into account the
SIDS-DPT connection).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway thank you for proving my original point; that you, like most people, have no problems criticizing choices you disagree with but expect respectful silence about your choices that others disagree with.

The only thing I'm criticizing is the general attitude toward people who might not think like you do. I'm not criticizing you for your choices at all. You have every right to do what you think is best for your family.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you. There are children with heart problems and other serious congenital problems that survived only because of modern medicine.
That is also true

So you now agree with me when just a bit ago you said my ideas in that same post had "no merit whatsoever"?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I'm criticizing is the general attitude toward people who might not think like you do. I'm not criticizing you for your choices at all. You have every right to do what you think is best for your family.

LOL, except you did criticize co-sleeping. You were incredulous that anyone would suggest it because it is so unsafe, then you stated that the people you support in not vaccinating their children would never "think of putting their children in harm's way" by co-sleeping...when the fact is those are the very people who suggest co-sleeping. You even accused me of making cheap shots at them when I mentioned they are the main advocates.

I don't think anyone would suggest an infant be in bed with a parent who could roll over on him while sleeping.

Most people who are the anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind), are also safety conscious individuals (especially when it comes to their children), and would never think of putting their infant in harm's way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you like celebrities...Mayim Bialik, aka "Blossom" from TV, also earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience at UCLA studying hormones and bonding and OCD. She is a big advocate of natural living and has written a book about it, and co-sleeping is one of her practices.

Hollywood Star Talks About Co-Sleeping, Baby-Wearing and Unschooling - ABC News

Why did you bring this woman up? There is no doubt that infant deaths occur with co-sleeping and each parent has to decide for themselves what is safe practice. I would never put an infant in an adult bed. And who said I like celebrities? I like the influence and the money that could back this book if a celebrity became interested.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She also doesn't vaccinate

and is a spokesperson for this group Holistic Moms Network which advocates for cosleeping

The idea of herd immunity is not considered factual by some researchers. So who do you believe? It depends which side you lean toward.

The Healthy Home Economist | The Herd Immunity Myth and How it Pits Parent Against Parent

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, except you did criticize co-sleeping. You were incredulous that anyone would suggest it because it is so unsafe, then you stated that the people you support in not vaccinating their children would never "think of putting their children in harm's way" by co-sleeping...when the fact is those are the very people who suggest co-sleeping. You even accused me of making cheap shots at them when I mentioned they are the main advocates.

I don't think anyone would suggest an infant be in bed with a parent who could roll over on him while sleeping.

Most people who are the anti-vaxxers of the crunchy granola/natural living mindset (not the religious God will protect kind), are also safety conscious individuals (especially when it comes to their children), and would never think of putting their infant in harm's way.

A parent who leans toward natural living would never purposely put their child in harm's way. They may not have enough information about co-sleeping, but if they believe they are taking the proper precautions then who is to tell them what to do. If something should happen to the child because they did not entertain certain dangers, they will be the ones that pay a hefty price, unfortunately. Just like the woman said, it might be a bonding experiencing but safety has to come first. One danger (being sleep deprived) does not justify the other.

[LadyShea]

How do you know it's any more dangerous than sleeping in a crib? Do you know the actual stats on co-sleeping vs. crib deaths? Do you know who is behind the anti co-sleeping campaigns? LOL, this is kind of fun...switching sides. However as usual I seem to have a lot more actual information than you do.

What’s behind the figures?
Why do no studies fully compare safe, conscientious cosleeping with other sleep situations? The results would reveal the safety and benefits of the family bed. The numbers in the largest study on cosleeping around the world suggest that safe cosleeping reduces SIDS greatly. Most nations with SIDS rates much lower than the United States regularly practice cosleeping on firm surfaces with low rates of adult smoking. Countries with increased cosleeping frequency also show decreased rates of SIDS.

It’s become obvious in recent years that pharmaceutical companies wield powerful influence over doctors’ prescribing habits. Parents who like to read and investigate are well aware of the strong ties between formula companies and pediatricians’ advisements.

A few years ago, it became apparent who was behind the curious disinformation campaigns about cosleeping. In May 2002, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released a weakly supported announcement purporting the dangers of cosleeping.

Interestingly, the announcement was sponsored by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) – in other words, the crib industry. The crib industry went further by providing “Safe Sleep” brochures to Toys ‘R Us and other venues, creating a video clip for wide media distribution, and granting continued “education” on the topic to doctors.

Frightening families away from safe, natural cosleeping sells more than more cribs. Research shows that cosleeping supports breastfeeding. Crib sleeping makes breastfeeding less convenient and more difficult; therefore, enforcing crib sleeping sells more formula. Keep following the progression: increased formula feeding means increased illnesses for babies, which means increased pharmaceutical sales. Does Co Sleeping Lead to SIDS? - HealthyChild.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no doubt that infant deaths occur with co-sleeping and each parent has to decide for themselves what is safe practice.

There is no doubt that infant deaths occur with crib sleeping, either. In fact many, many more babies die of unknown causes in their cribs (aka SIDS) than die in co-sleeping situations. So, according to actual number of deaths, which sleeping arrangement is safer? Unfortunately, numbers in a vacuum. We are missing critical data points...but there is no reason to panic and assert that co-sleeping is clearly the greater risk, and every reason to practice risk reduction no matter your choice of sleeping arrangements.

The conclusion that the researchers drew from this study was that sleeping with an infant in an adult bed is dangerous and should never be done. This sounds like a reasonable conclusion, until you consider the epidemic of SIDS as a whole. During the 8-year period of this study, about 34,000 total cases of SIDS occurred in the U.S. (around 4250 per year). If 65 cases of non-SIDS accidental death occurred each year in a bed, and about 4250 cases of actual SIDS occurred overall each year, then the number of accidental deaths in an adult bed is only 1.5% of the total cases of SIDS.

There are two pieces of critical data that are missing that would allow us to determine the risk of SIDS or any cause of death in a bed versus a crib.

How many cases of actual SIDS occur in an adult bed versus in a crib?
How many babies sleep with their parents in the U.S., and how many sleep in cribs?

The data on the first question is available, but has anyone examined it? In fact, one independent researcher examined the CPSC's data and came to the opposite conclusion than did the CPSC - this data supports the conclusion that sleeping with your baby is actually SAFER than not sleeping with your baby (see Mothering Magazine Sept/Oct 2002) SIDS: The Latest Research on How Sleeping With Your Baby is Safe | Ask Dr. Sears®

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And who said I like celebrities?

You said you like celebrity. You think famous people can work miracles I guess

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All it will take is someone famous to endorse this discovery. It would spread like wildfire. Most major paradigm shifts come from a grassroots effort. Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along. This discovery is too important for it to fall by the wayside by naysayers, whether they are scientifically oriented, or not.