A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Frankly I don't see how they can know how the human body functions as a system. Everything is inside, behind a wall of flesh and bones, and all the new detectors are a poor substitute for what we can detect with our eyes.

It isn't as though they can trace all the paths of the nerve systems like the wires in a house.

Why does this not surprise me, sounds just like something Peacegirl would say, perhaps Stephen Maturin was not refering to the 'push-me pull-you' as the 'sock puppet'.

Well at least Peacegirl has someone to agree with her, but it's more like agreeing with yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Peacegirl: if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory (which has been accepted as fact), then science needs to make modifications.

Definitely, but it will never happen. Too many papers and books would have to be changed, reputations would suffer, credibility would be questioned, and existing units (if any) would cost too much money to modify

Sounds just like something Peacegirl would write. Or something out of Lessans' book.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just looking for a red herring to distract people. It doesn't surprise me.

Yes, I desperately need a red herring to distract the discerning readers from your gargantuan idiocies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, I desperately need a red herring to distract the discerning readers from your gargantuan idiocies.

David, your answers don't say anything except to show that you are angry at someone who says science, in this instance, might be wrong. That's unfortunate because your anger will not allow you to see anything that contradicts your beliefs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So if the light arrived directly from the sun, rather than arriving via the object (our newly-blue ball) being photographed, then why is that light of blue wavelength only, rather than a combination of all wavelengths like regular sunlight?

Spacemonkey, please think carefully about this because there is a logical explanation but only if you will allow yourself to see it. The object is capable of absorbing the wavelength [coming from the light] as we see the object in real time. We are able see the wavelength that is remaining and the only reason we didn't come to this conclusion is because we believed that the eyes were a sense organ. There is nothing being reflected. It is true that light travels at a finite speed, but it doesn't take every wavelength that it crosses with it. Light interacts with objects, but it is the property of light that we see, not the property of the object. The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object.

[LadyShea]

Did Lessans actually talk about rods and cones and wavelengths and such? Seems to me he thought the eyes were more or less inactive windows for the brain to look through.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hmmm, Has Peacegirl found a 'soulmate' who will believe what she has to say? Two lonely voices crying in the wilderness.

As Rickoshay said, just because the majority believe in something doesn't make it true, therefore two people could be right and the rest of the world wrong.

[LadyShea]

Follow the evidence, not the people claiming to know the truth but offering nothing to support that claim. It's just a good policy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did Lessans actually talk about rods and cones and wavelengths and such? Seems to me he thought the eyes were more or less inactive windows for the brain to look through.

They are the connection between our internal world and the external world. You can label it anything you want. There could be some transduction occurring otherwise we wouldn't be seeing shadows or patterns, but this does not mean that we will ever see the external world (the world that we see everyday and function in) due to the processing of signals and interpreted by the brain as true to life images.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Follow the evidence, not the people claiming to know the truth but offering nothing to support that claim. It's just a good policy.

But there is evidence. It all depends on what evidence you are looking at. He got his evidence from observation and followed the reasoning to see where it took him. It is YOU that is accepting the logic of afferent vision without looking at the basic premise, which is where the problem stems. The premise has to be questioned that the eyes work like the other senses, or you will continue to say he didn't know what he was talking about.

[LadyShea]

I am just trying to figure out if you are adding to it to make it fit as you go, or if you are working from Lessans model, maybe some writings you didn't include in the version I read.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence. It all depends on what evidence you are looking at. He got his evidence from observation and followed the reasoning thereof. It is YOU that is accepting the logic of afferent vision without looking at the basic premise, which is where the problem stems. The premise has to be questioned that the eyes work like the other senses, or you will continue to say he didn't know what he was talking about.

Conclusions based on personal observations and assertions are not adequate evidence.

I am not accepting logic, I have reached a justified conclusion based on ample evidence

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence. It all depends on what evidence you are looking at. He got his evidence from observation and followed the reasoning thereof. It is YOU that is accepting the logic of afferent vision without looking at the basic premise, which is where the problem stems. The premise has to be questioned that the eyes work like the other senses, or you will continue to say he didn't know what he was talking about.

Sorry, no, this is another thing that has been repeated explained to you, Your Royal Willful Ignoramus, and which you have dishonestly ignored. The idea that the eye is a sense organ is not a fucking premise. It is a repeatedly observed, studied, and well-confirmed empirical fact. We have looked at the eye, we have dissected it (The Lone Ranger has dissected it!), we have studied it, we have examined it down to its molecular and atomic detail. All of which was discussed by The Lone Ranger in the essay that you dishonestly refused to read. So fuck off with your claims that "afferent seeing" is a premise. I realize that your nitwit of a father knew nothing about the scientific study of the eye, when the buffoon wrote that scientists thought that seeing was afferent because Aristotle said so. So this jerk who wrote this swill thought that no one ever looked at the eye, they just took Aristotle's say-so on it! That's how dumb he was, and you are.

Fuck off, peacegirl.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, your answers don't say anything except to show that you are angry at someone who says science, in this instance, might be wrong. That's unfortunate because your anger will not allow you to see anything that contradicts your beliefs.

No, peacegirl, my responses to what you write stem from the fact that you are a dishonest, contemptible little shit who knows absolutely nothing about science, yet you presume to lecture others on what is real. Once again, the only one who has a personal stake in the outcome of scientific findings is you. You desperately need to believe that your father was some kind of God, whereas in fact he was a buffoon. And so are you.

[davidm]

"Voila! We see!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, I desperately need a red herring to distract the discerning readers from your gargantuan idiocies.

Then why are you bringing up stupid things that have nothing to do with Lessans' keen observations? It's like a court of law where the prosecutors are trying to discredit the witnesses' observations as to what they saw because of their supposed lack of credibility. The prosecution is doing whatever they can to put doubt in the minds of the jury. I'm giving you Lessans' very astute observations which have nothing to do with me. All I'm trying to do is show you, in terms of how light works, that his observations make sense. You are grasping at straws David because you cannot bear the thought that we see in the present, and he was right all along. It's very obvious to me due to your extreme reactions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"Voila! We see!"

I'm going to have to start ignoring you because you are wasting too much of my time and have zero to add to the conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, peacegirl, my responses to what you write stem from the fact that you are a dishonest, contemptible little shit who knows absolutely nothing about science, yet you presume to lecture others on what is real. Once again, the only one who has a personal stake in the outcome of scientific findings is you. You desperately need to believe that your father was some kind of God, whereas in fact he was a buffoon. And so are you.

There you go again showing everyone how invested you are in your sacred worldview. The more you open your mouth the easier it is to see why you are so reactive. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting weary of the same old emotional baggage you're bringing to this discussion in the name of objectivity.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

: Scientists don't know everything about the brain. There is a lot of unknown territory. They are mapping out what they believe to be happening in the visual cortex, but there is a lot yet to learn.

If neuroscientists don't know everything about the brain, and you and Lessans certainly knew/know even less about the brain, how can you make assertions such as

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the ability of the brain to project onto reality a non-existing value which takes on the appearance of reality through conditioning.

The brain could not do this if sight was afferent.

and

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation [other than efferent vision]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just trying to figure out if you are adding to it to make it fit as you go, or if you are working from Lessans model, maybe some writings you didn't include in the version I read.

I'm not adding anything that would change the basic concept. I am only extending the clues he gave us but might not have elaborated on in depth. He probably thought it was clear enough. He didn't specifically talk about rods and cones, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of his observations. If I add anything it's just to try to fill in the gaps to help you see that there is no magic here; just pure science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If neuroscientists don't know everything about the brain, and you and Lessans certainly knew/know even less about the brain, how can you make assertions such as

and

This is where his observations stemmed from. They provided clues as to how the brain functions. He did not come to these findings based on his knowledge of light per se. He based his findings on his knowledge of human nature, and from this vantage point he was able to see the confusion with words and how the saying "seeing is believing" (which means that we don't believe something until we see it) became a truism, not realizing that these fallacious word slides do not symbolize anything real but create the illusion of doing so, and have fooled everyone by getting a foothold in our lexicon and our everyday speech. He didn't have to map out the entire mechanism of efferent vision to prove that he knew where he spoke. He just needed to show that we cannot become conditioned through afferent vision since there would be no way of projecting onto this screen of undeniable substance words that appear realistic, but have no corresponding accuracy.

[peacegirl]

In Chapter Seven, The Wisdom of Socrates, I added those examples regarding vaccination. The whole point was to show why vaccinations will not be compulsory. It will be up to the parents, not the doctor, to make that decision based on up-to-date information. I found an interesting article that sheds some light on this issue.

Science of Vaccine Damage
written by Catherine O' Driscoll
(posted with permission)

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.

It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.

The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)

Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:

"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.

Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.

Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.

There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.

Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.

Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.

A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:

Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9)

Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."

Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)

A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.

Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.

"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)

If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.

If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.

Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.

Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.

In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.

The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.

About the Author:
Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.

For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email catherine@carsegray.co.uk, website Canine Health Concern - Putting your dog’s health first. Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide from Dogwise at Welcome to Dogwise.com - Dog Books, Ebooks and Toys.

Endnotes
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at haywardstudyonvaccines.

2. See 404 Not Found.

3. See Vaccine Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF) Home Page.

4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.

5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.

6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.

7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985. See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.

8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.

9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at Immune System - Dr. Jean Dodds.

10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.

11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.

12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.

13. ibid.

14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at Journal of Inflammation content/1/1/3.

15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002, 404: File Not Found.

16. ibid.

17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.

18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).

19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I agree as long as the truth is true, and the facts are factual, but fiction and fantasy don't count and must be dismissed.

Challenge; find any truth or fact in anything that Peacegirl or Lessans has written.

He hasn't been here that long to make that kind of determination, but give it time. Hopefully he will have the open mind necessary to give Lessans a chance, unlike others in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That to my mind is the stupidist part of this whole efferent vision nonsense. "Looking out" is just a synonym for vision itself, so it cannot be posited as a component part of any explanation of that very same process. "Looking" is just another word for "seeing", so explaining "seeing" in terms of "looking out" doesn't explain anything, and only posits again the very same process it is meant to explain.

Of course this has also been pointed out to Lessans' disciple multiple times in every forum she's been to.

I have never used the term "looking out". I couldn't have been more clear in explaining the difference between afferent and efferent than in this thread. Yes we see, and yes we look out, but it's how we see that makes all the difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do they do that?

I don't want to get into explaining the exact model at this point. I want to establish the validity of efferent vision before trying to figure out the exact mechanism. I could explain what I believe to be the mechanism and be completely wrong. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does the visual cortex do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The visual cortex has many functions so you can't expect me to answer you in an intelligent way unless your question is more directed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pick 3 major functions and explain how they work within the efferent vision model

All the major functions that work with afferent vision work with efferent vision. The major functions are the retina, optic nerve, and visual cortex.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you agree that light travels and can be reflected or absorbed, what happens to the photons that hit or eyes or our cameras?
Why do the moons of Jupiter appear to be one place when we observe them, though that is not their known, actual location?

You are mushing this altogether. I stated that light travels but it does not reflect the image. Do you not get this? What's the problem?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We never said "light reflects the image" either, that phrase has no meaning, and we've never used it, so that's either you misrepresenting our view or not understanding our view.

I meant to say the object does not reflect an image. Light bounces off of the object but does not [carry] the image with it. Blue is seen by the eye, but blue (the blue wavelength) is not in the light itself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop using the moons of Jupiter until further evidence comes in, or you are protecting your worldview based on a [possible] mistake more than wanting to know the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm asking you to explain the Moons of Jupiter observation under efferent vision.

There is no mistake in the observations, you can observe it for yourself!!!

I didn't say there's a mistake. I said that there could be some other explanation for this phenomenon. It is not my responsibility to disprove the moons of Jupiter experiment. It's my responsibility to explain efferent vision, and why I believe Lessans was spot on. The rest is up to scientists to figure out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This constant attack on me is getting very old. If you don't want to work with me to see if Lessans could have been right, then let's give it up. I'm not here to beg for your approval.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to work with you. You haven't presented a working model even!

I have explained enough about light and sight to show that efferent vision is not out of the question like so many in here believe.