Prove to me that there is 1 in a million chance that a child will have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.Since you could easily google that yourself, I have to ask what it is you are asking for? I could provide a number of links, but what would you trust? Not the CDC I assume. Do you need names and addresses of 999,999 healthy children? What counts as proof for you? Nothing counts as proof for her. We already know this from three and a half years at FF with her. Or rather, what counts for proof for her is: 1. what her father wrote; and 2. what she wants to believe is true, regardless of the evidence. An example: Her father claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it in the sky immediately, but would not see their neighbors until eight and a half minutes had passed -- the time it takes the photons to reach the earth. So, according to her father, we would see the photons on the sun immediately, but not see our neighbors until the photons from the sun reached the earth. This claim is daft, of course. It would be better to say that that we would see the sun, and our neighbors on the earth, instantaneously, on the assumption that the speed of light was infinite. This would be wrong, of course -- we know the speed of light is c, not infinite -- but at least it would, unlike her father's claim, be possible in principle. We, of course, adduced many proofs against her father's claim. She rejected them all. The most compelling was a mathematical proof that was given to her. If her father's claim were correct, the actual position of Mars, and its apparent position, in the sky, would be the same, obviously. If that were true, then when NASA calculates the maths of how to send spacecraft to land on Mars, it would have to do the maths based on her father's purported real-time seeing. Instead, NASA (obviously) does the maths based on the delayed-time seeing that her father rejected. And hits the target every time, absent technological failure. She was shown a simple mathematical calculation demonstrating by how much the spacecraft would miss Mars, if we used her father's real-time seeing. This is a deductive proof that her father's claims were wrong. What was her response? "Something else must be going on there!" Reasoning with peacegirl is futile. Just a word to the wise, so you don't waste a lot of your time
That is an amazing story Pec. I only keep asking her question to see what she’ll come up with next. Kind of an experiment you might say. At she admits it “who you trust”, I have an acquaintance that can follow me down a long path what science is and how it is applied, and we agree the whole way, then, as soon as you apply it to his theory of they day, soul travel or conspiracy or whatever, suddenly one YouTube trumps all that and he’s explaining how “mainstream science” is corrupt.
That is an amazing story Pec. I only keep asking her question to see what she'll come up with next. Kind of an experiment you might say. At she admits it "who you trust", I have an acquaintance that can follow me down a long path what science is and how it is applied, and we agree the whole way, then, as soon as you apply it to his theory of they day, soul travel or conspiracy or whatever, suddenly one YouTube trumps all that and he's explaining how "mainstream science" is corrupt.Yes, we ran that experiment for three and a half years at FF. Much lulz ensued. :lol:
You're right, it's who you trust. ?Do you trust anyone? I'm old enough that I've seen people grow up, go to school and become doctors and nurses. None of them have told me that they were told to lie to their patients about vaccines. FYI, I also know someone who's child died soon after getting vaccinated. Add to that many, many more people who know people I know well enough to trust who also have not reported anything like that to me. Instead I hear the opposite. Add to that my understanding of how education and certification work, and that I could go into any institution near me and have it explained and demonstrated and I could talk to students and teachers. Add to that citizen review boards that have publicly available documentation. It goes on an on like that. Now look at it from the other direction, have you ever seen someone get caught in a lie about vaccines? Are the risks listed in the inserts hiding anything? What causes you to not trust?
Prove to me that there is 1 in a million chance that a child will have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.Since you could easily google that yourself, I have to ask what it is you are asking for? I could provide a number of links, but what would you trust? Not the CDC I assume. Do you need names and addresses of 999,999 healthy children? What counts as proof for you? Nothing counts as proof for her. We already know this from three and a half years at FF with her. Or rather, what counts for proof for her is: 1. what her father wrote; and 2. what she wants to believe is true, regardless of the evidence. An example: Her father claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it in the sky immediately, but would not see their neighbors until eight and a half minutes had passed -- the time it takes the photons to reach the earth. So, according to her father, we would see the photons on the sun immediately, but not see our neighbors until the photons from the sun reached the earth. This claim is daft, of course. It would be better to say that that we would see the sun, and our neighbors on the earth, instantaneously, on the assumption that the speed of light was infinite. This would be wrong, of course -- we know the speed of light is c, not infinite -- but at least it would, unlike her father's claim, be possible in principle. We, of course, adduced many proofs against her father's claim. She rejected them all. The most compelling was a mathematical proof that was given to her. If her father's claim were correct, the actual position of Mars, and its apparent position, in the sky, would be the same, obviously. If that were true, then when NASA calculates the maths of how to send spacecraft to land on Mars, it would have to do the maths based on her father's purported real-time seeing. Instead, NASA (obviously) does the maths based on the delayed-time seeing that her father rejected. And hits the target every time, absent technological failure. She was shown a simple mathematical calculation demonstrating by how much the spacecraft would miss Mars, if we used her father's real-time seeing. This is a deductive proof that her father's claims were wrong. What was her response? "Something else must be going on there!" Reasoning with peacegirl is futile. Just a word to the wise, so you don't waste a lot of your time Do you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic.
Do you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic.Actually this is a consequence of the very same open society that provides me with the information I need to trust vaccines. Just like you are free to ask any random nurse on the street what they think about vaccines, I can ask a random guy on the internet about some other random person on the internet. I can then take they say and attempt to verify it. In this case, I can either find time stamped data with your name on it or not. Are you saying that I wouldn't find it?
Nothing counts as proof for her. We already know this from three and a half years at FF with her. Or rather, what counts for proof for her is: 1. what her father wrote; and 2. what she wants to believe is true, regardless of the evidence. An example: Her father claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it in the sky immediately, but would not see their neighbors until eight and a half minutes had passed -- the time it takes the photons to reach the earth. So, according to her father, we would see the photons on the sun immediately, but not see our neighbors until the photons from the sun reached the earth. This claim is daft, of course. It would be better to say that that we would see the sun, and our neighbors on the earth, instantaneously, on the assumption that the speed of light was infinite. This would be wrong, of course -- we know the speed of light is c, not infinite -- but at least it would, unlike her father's claim, be possible in principle. We, of course, adduced many proofs against her father's claim. She rejected them all. The most compelling was a mathematical proof that was given to her. If her father's claim were correct, the actual position of Mars, and its apparent position, in the sky, would be the same, obviously. If that were true, then when NASA calculates the maths of how to send spacecraft to land on Mars, it would have to do the maths based on her father's purported real-time seeing. Instead, NASA (obviously) does the maths based on the delayed-time seeing that her father rejected. And hits the target every time, absent technological failure. She was shown a simple mathematical calculation demonstrating by how much the spacecraft would miss Mars, if we used her father's real-time seeing. This is a deductive proof that her father's claims were wrong. What was her response? "Something else must be going on there!" Reasoning with peacegirl is futile. Just a word to the wise, so you don't waste a lot of your timeDo you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic. Yes, hopefully all those thousands of lurkers reading this thread will see exactly what Pec is doing, showing your father for the buffoon he was. Lessans made numerous claims in the book that could easily be verified as wrong, so it is likely that he was wrong about his claims about free will, at least his reasoning for proof was wrong. If you are so convinced that everything he wrote was correct, why will you not discuss anything else in the book? Make it available on line again so that everyone can read and see for themselves, rather than you trying to tell them how wonderful it is. If his ideas are really that good, you will be rewarded more than you could imagine, and certainly more that you could ever make from selling the book.
Do you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic.Actually this is a consequence of the very same open society that provides me with the information I need to trust vaccines. Oh really? Tell me about it?
Just like you are free to ask any random nurse on the street what they think about vaccines, I can ask a random guy on the internet about some other random person on the internet. I can then take they say and attempt to verify it. In this case, I can either find time stamped data with your name on it or not. Are you saying that I wouldn't find it?Random? Are you saying that these are nothing but random conclusions based on strict variable control? With all due respect, I have to agree that these studies prove a danger. This conclusion is based on the indiscriminate vaccine administration to neonytes. This is anything but random. I don't know where you're coming from Lausten. Are you a federal agent? Your question for me to find time data with my name on it, is absurd and very disrespectful. That does not belong in a conversation that is trying to find the truth of whether the vaccine schedule that is constantly increasing could be hurting susceptible children.
Do you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic.Actually this is a consequence of the very same open society that provides me with the information I need to trust vaccines. Oh really? Tell me about it?
Just like you are free to ask any random nurse on the street what they think about vaccines, I can ask a random guy on the internet about some other random person on the internet. I can then take they say and attempt to verify it. In this case, I can either find time stamped data with your name on it or not. Are you saying that I wouldn't find it?Random? Are you saying that these are nothing but random conclusions based on strict variable control? With all due respect, I have to agree that these studies prove a danger. This conclusion is based on the indiscriminate vaccine administration to neonytes. This is anything but random. I don't know where you're coming from Lausten. Are you a federal agent? Your question for me to find time data with my name on it, is absurd and very disrespectful. That does not belong in a conversation that is trying to find the truth of whether the vaccine schedule that is constantly increasing could be hurting susceptible children. Wow. This post has my name on it and is time stamped. It's a fake name, but that fake name is one I use on the internet, it has a certain reputation. It's not too hard to recognize my style. It's public, there's no secret agent stuff going on here. What's a neonyte? I'm not going to explain the rest because you aren't make any effort here.
I'm not going to explain the rest because you aren't make any effort here.Peacegirl hardly ever makes an effort, it's all hysterics and butthurt.
Do you see what this guy is doing? What he is discussing is not even related to the topic under discussion. He doesn't like that my father made a discovery on light and sight, and he follows me around the internet trying to get people to reject me. I hope people can see what he's doing because it's a very underhanded tactic.Actually this is a consequence of the very same open society that provides me with the information I need to trust vaccines. Oh really? Tell me about it?
Just like you are free to ask any random nurse on the street what they think about vaccines, I can ask a random guy on the internet about some other random person on the internet. I can then take they say and attempt to verify it. In this case, I can either find time stamped data with your name on it or not. Are you saying that I wouldn't find it?Random? Are you saying that these are nothing but random conclusions based on strict variable control? With all due respect, I have to agree that these studies prove a danger. This conclusion is based on the indiscriminate vaccine administration to neonytes. This is anything but random. I don't know where you're coming from Lausten. Are you a federal agent? Your question for me to find time data with my name on it, is absurd and very disrespectful. That does not belong in a conversation that is trying to find the truth of whether the vaccine schedule that is constantly increasing could be hurting susceptible children. Wow. This post has my name on it and is time stamped. It's a fake name, but that fake name is one I use on the internet, it has a certain reputation. It's not too hard to recognize my style. It's public, there's no secret agent stuff going on here. What's a neonyte? I'm not going to explain the rest because you aren't make any effort here. What effort are you talking about? Reading the link? I said I would do that when I had time. I was being sarcastic when I asked you "are you are federal agent". As far as neonyte, it was a typo. Correct spelling: neonate. I really don't know if we can have a productive conversation. I don't want to call it a debate because that means someone wins and someone loses. Right now I'm listening to this: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-1
What effort are you talking about? Reading the link? I said I would do that when I had time. I was being sarcastic when I asked you "are you are federal agent". As far as neonyte, it was a typo. Correct spelling: neonate. I really don't know if we can have a productive conversation. I don't want to call it a debate because that means someone wins and someone loses. Right now I'm listening to this: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-1It would require effort from me to explain why I don't see effort from you. Kudos for watching that video. Part II explains how Wakefield lied in an attempt to manipulate people for his own personal financial gain, exactly what you've been saying Big Pharma does, but the guy who kicked the anti-MMR controversy into high gear is the one who actually got caught. If you look at the footnotes of just about every so-called that links autism to vaccines, you still see Wakefield's name. Even though it is almost impossible find a copy of the original study that doesn't have "redacted" stamped all over it.
What effort are you talking about? Reading the link? I said I would do that when I had time. I was being sarcastic when I asked you "are you are federal agent". As far as neonyte, it was a typo. Correct spelling: neonate. I really don't know if we can have a productive conversation. I don't want to call it a debate because that means someone wins and someone loses. Right now I'm listening to this: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-1It would require effort from me to explain why I don't see effort from you. Kudos for watching that video. Part II explains how Wakefield lied in an attempt to manipulate people for his own personal financial gain, I don't believe that was his motive.
exactly what you've been saying Big Pharma does, but the guy who kicked the anti-MMR controversy into high gear is the one who actually got caught.No, that was not his intent.
If you look at the footnotes of just about every so-called that links autism to vaccines, you still see Wakefield's name. Even though it is almost impossible find a copy of the original study that doesn't have "redacted" stamped all over it.I'm not convinced that there is no relationship between thimerosal and developmental disorders. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage." Dr. Boyd Haley, mercury-toxicity expert
Zero U.S. measles deaths in 10 years, but over 100 measles vaccine deaths reported
Tuesday, February 03, 2015 by: Natural News Editors
(NaturalNews) With the measles and measles vaccine debate reaching a near frenzy on the Internet, it is always nice to throw some cold hard facts on the firestorm currently raging in the measles debate. (Story by Brian Shilhavy, republished from VaccineImpact.com)
So here are some easily verifiable facts regarding deaths associated with measles in the United States for the past 10 years, and deaths associated with measles vaccines during the same 10 year period.
First, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) keeps a weekly tally of disease outbreaks, including deaths. According to a statement made by Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in an Associated Press story picked up by Fox News on April 25, 2014:
There have been no measles deaths reported in the U.S. since 2003
The weekly CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR) since that date have not revealed any measles deaths either.
And while health authorities are blaming measles outbreaks in recent years on unvaccinated children, when you mention the fact that nobody is dying from measles in the U.S., they are quick to turn around and claim vaccines have eliminated measles deaths (even though they cannot eliminate the disease itself apparently.)
Besides the obvious contradiction in reasoning with such a claim, the historical evidence just does not support it either:
Death by Measles Vaccines
What about deaths associated with the measles vaccine during the same time period?
The U.S. Government keeps a database of reports called The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The database is available to the public, and there is a search portal the public can use at Medalerts.org.[1]
We ran a search for a ten year period for deaths reported with measles vaccines, including a few that are no longer in production. The search result contained 108 deaths over this period, associated with four different measles vaccines sold in the United States during the past 10 years.
Learn more: Zero U.S. measles deaths in 10 years, but over 100 measles vaccine deaths reported - NaturalNews.com
So, when you hear this
So, many studies have been showing no link and studies have been done picking apart the various links that Wakefield claimed. 10 of the 13 authors retracted their conclusions. This is highly unusual. An investigative journalist, who has taken on pharmaceuticals in the past, found out about the lawyers who wanted to sue the MMR manufacturers paid Wakefield to do the study. Wakefield has a competing patent to the MMR vaccine. He had a company that sold an alternative. He never disclosed these things. A review board found he was negligent and unskilled in doing this study. He has been removed from the medical registry.What goes through your mind? How do you remain unconvinced? How do you conclude his intent was not personal gain?
We ran a search for a ten year period for deaths reported with measles vaccines, including a few that are no longer in production. The search result contained 108 deaths over this period, associated with four different measles vaccines sold in the United States during the past 10 years. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048573_measles_deaths_MMR_vaccine_immunization_dangers.html#ixzz3aDJ2iiJcThe key word there is "associated with". VAERS is self-reported data. It does not come from official medical records. It is there simply to track any and all events. Someone could get a vaccine, die in a car accident a week later, and be in that database. I'm not exaggerating. Look it up. As they say, that is data that is available to everyone. It's only 108 cases. It should not be difficult to list every one of them, but places like Natural News don't do that. They don't show their work. They do searches until they find some numbers that they can fit to their story.
We ran a search for a ten year period for deaths reported with measles vaccines, including a few that are no longer in production. The search result contained 108 deaths over this period, associated with four different measles vaccines sold in the United States during the past 10 years. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048573_measles_deaths_MMR_vaccine_immunization_dangers.html#ixzz3aDJ2iiJcThe key word there is "associated with". VAERS is self-reported data. It does not come from official medical records. It is there simply to track any and all events. Someone could get a vaccine, die in a car accident a week later, and be in that database. I'm not exaggerating. Look it up. As they say, that is data that is available to everyone. It's only 108 cases. It should not be difficult to list every one of them, but places like Natural News don't do that. They don't show their work. They do searches until they find some numbers that they can fit to their story. They don't do that Lausten. You are unfairly condemning Natural News when they have done nothing wrong. They said you should look it up yourself. Read the entire report.
They don't do that Lausten. You are unfairly condemning Natural News when they have done nothing wrong. They said you should look it up yourself. Read the entire report.Exactly, I should look it up myself. Actually you should, you're the one who says it's true. Prove it. Show me the 108 cases. How did Natural News find them? What search criteria did they use? What do they mean be "associated". A real piece of scientific research would answer all of those questions up front so someone could replicate their study and review their data. Luckily there are other people who have that kind of time and attempt to find the same results. They then shows us their work. But you won't look for that because it would disagree with your preconceived notions. Just like that video disagreed with you, so you dismissed it. Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you?
They don't do that Lausten. You are unfairly condemning Natural News when they have done nothing wrong. They said you should look it up yourself. Read the entire report.Exactly, I should look it up myself. Actually you should, you're the one who says it's true. Prove it. Show me the 108 cases. How did Natural News find them? What search criteria did they use? What do they mean be "associated". A real piece of scientific research would answer all of those questions up front so someone could replicate their study and review their data. Luckily there are other people who have that kind of time and attempt to find the same results. They then shows us their work. But you won't look for that because it would disagree with your preconceived notions. Just like that video disagreed with you, so you dismissed it. Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you? Lausten, this is going to go nowhere. Unless we can let our guards down and have a conversation, not a debate, which implies a winner and loser, it will have no good outcome whatsoever on either side. That is how polarized this issue has become. Sam Harris crystallizes the problem. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky
They don't do that Lausten. You are unfairly condemning Natural News when they have done nothing wrong. They said you should look it up yourself. Read the entire report.Exactly, I should look it up myself. Actually you should, you're the one who says it's true. Prove it. Show me the 108 cases. How did Natural News find them? What search criteria did they use? What do they mean be "associated". A real piece of scientific research would answer all of those questions up front so someone could replicate their study and review their data. Luckily there are other people who have that kind of time and attempt to find the same results. They then shows us their work. But you won't look for that because it would disagree with your preconceived notions. Just like that video disagreed with you, so you dismissed it. Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you? I've explained this upthread. Now you're learning it firsthand. Peacegirl believes two things are true: anything and everything that her father wrote (even though she keeps changing her father's text! Her father believed that light was made of molecules; we schooled her and pointed out that light was made of photons. In the text of her father's daffy book, she changed every instance of "molecules" to "photons," but of course she never thanked us for schooling her, and indeed brazened it out and maintained that her father never wrote a false line! Why? Because, she said, if her father had been wrong, he would have admitted that he was wrong. Since he never admitted that he was wrong, he was never wrong!) Just try and grok that. I mean, Wow! The second thing she believes is true, is anything she wants to believe is true. For her, those things are true. I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.