jts

Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Science and Morality have nearly an empty intersection. Science is about how the world works,  not about what is right and what is wrong in the ethical sense.

Bob,

Poppycock.

When science is funded by its victims, there's not only a big honking lot of morality in it, there's a ton of immorality.

Let's do like this. Remove government from science and let the scientists survive on the free market. Do you think that's a good idea? I think it's wonderful.

Another thought, to you believe it's possible for people to become corrupted by unearned money, even scientists?

Hmmmm?...

:) 

These are moral issues that go right to the heart of scientific credibility.

If you want to know "how the world  works," really works, cut government funding from science. Then talk to me about ethics.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Well, okay, then, I'll just believe that guy's opinion rather than my own observations of what happened at the time. Yeah, his charts and graphs nullify the things that were being said at the time. I didn't hear those things because your Doctor Kimball C. Atwood didn't look for them, but instead presented charts and graphs. And I haven't seen interviews of Marshall or Warren in which they discussed the dogmatic mindset that they faced, because your Kimball C. Atwood didn't see such interviews. If he didn't look for them, find them or see them, then they never happened. It's settled science that it's just a silly myth. Everyone was actually very nice and open minded to the ideas of Drs. Marshall and Warren. It was all smooth sailing.

And it's all very "nuanced" to take a subject which, by its nature, involved mostly oral expressions of resistance to new ideas, then to not look for any evidence of those expressions, then to not find any of them, and to conclude that it was all a myth!

Were absolutely certain that it was a myth. Atwood's comments prove it. Let's say "myth" some more just to make it even more true.

 

Max, you're demonstrating the illogic and pompous stupidity that we're criticizing. Your linked source doesn't address the actual issue, but attempts to bypass it with non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation, and sloppy assumptions.

Huh? Did we read the same article? I think Atwood is very fair to Marshall in his article, he gives simply the facts that demolish the notion of Marshall as a lone fighter against those stubborn people from "settled science". He mentions all the studies that were done at the time to check the bacterium theory. He also tried to contact Marshall to comment for his article, but Marshall had not replied. Interesting is that Marshall in 1991 wrote: “In my naïveté I expected H. pylori to be immediately accepted as the cause of duodenal ulcer,” [but] “the presence of H. pylori in many apparently healthy persons has made its pathogenic role harder to understand and has delayed wide acceptance of the new bacterium as an important pathogen” (Marshall 1991). 

Already before I'd read this article, I had my doubts, as I'd found how soon after his first publication a large study was conducted to test the theory, and how soon Marshall's views were vindicated, and how many awards he has won since then:  the Warren Alpert Prize, the Australian Medical Association Award, the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research, the Gairdner Foundation International Award, de Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize, the Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society, and last but not least the Nobel prize, to name just a few. He can hardly complain about lack of recognition.

But perhaps you can show me some of all those non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation and sloppy assumptions in that article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Poppycock.

When science is funded by its victims, there's not only a big honking lot of morality in it, there's a ton of immorality.

Let's do like this. Remove government from science and let the scientists survive on the free market. Do you think that's a good idea? I think it's wonderful.

Another thought, to you believe it's possible for people to become corrupted by unearned money, even scientists?

Hmmmm?...

:) 

These are moral issues that go right to the heart of scientific credibility.

If you want to know "how the world  works," really works, cut government funding from science. Then talk to me about ethics.

Michael

The funding of science is a separate issue from the science itself.  As I said, Science, as such,  is concerned with the way the world works, not what is right or wrong.  Nature does not care what is right and wrong. Humans care what is right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The funding of science is a separate issue from the science itself.

Bob,

I wish that were true.

But it's only true in some imaginary utopia.

You can't have science without scientists. You can't have scientists without money. Today's scientists like government money. And many do sloppy sloppy work for unearned money and call it science. And they squelch scientific inquiry in the name of "science" to keep their money flows open.

It's all interconnected.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

The physical sciences are not all alike and cannot use the same procedures or standards. In Astronomy, for example, experimentation is problematic. Each science requires procedures suited to the subject matter investigated. Bob is trying to force fit what’s appropriate in his specialty into life science.

We know from ER experience that the same sized dose of X will kill patient A, merely sicken patient B and have no measurable effects on patient C. It can be repeated so that patients with characteristics like patient A will almost always be killed, with characteristics like patient C, almost never  any consequences, etc.  Bob looks at this through the lense of the science he spent his career with and concludes that since dose X doesn’t always kill, it cannot be named the cause of death of patients in category A.

Ultimately all scientific hypotheses and theories are validated by 1.  observation and measurement  2. laboratory experiment and testing   3. clinical testing which generally uses some statistical form of hypothesis test.   The bottom line is:  the predictions  have to match what nature shows through either observation or experiment.  Science of any kind has to be subject to testing and potential empirical falsification.  Obviously the details of the experiments and observations depend on what is  being studied.  Some things can be corroborated by conditions in imposed in the laboratory.  Other things have to be observed and measured as they happen naturally.  Astronomy, as you pointed out, is such a science.  So is cosmology.  Particle and Field physics are tested in such installations as CERN.  Chemistry is tested in the lab.  Biology is test both in the lab and in the field.  The essential thing that distinguishes the physicals sciences (that work) is ultimate empirical testing and possible falsification,  from philosophy  which is all vapor and abstraction.  Mathematics is a peculiar thing. It is not a science because it is not empirical  but  its claims have to be validated by proofs  which are formulated by mathematicians,  then read and checked by other mathematicians.  Checking a proof for correctness is empirical even though all of the subject matter is abstract.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Ultimately all scientific hypotheses and theories are validated by 1.  observation and measurement  2. laboratory experiment and testing   3. clinical testing which generally uses some statistical form of hypothesis test.   The bottom line is:  the predictions  have to match what nature shows through either observation or experiment.  Science of any kind has to be subject to testing and potential empirical falsification.  Obviously the details of the experiments and observations depend on what is  being studied.  Some things can be corroborated by conditions in imposed in the laboratory.  Other things have to be observed and measured as they happen naturally.  Astronomy, as you pointed out, is such a science.  So is cosmology.  Particle and Field physics are tested in such installations as CERN.  Chemistry is tested in the lab.  Biology is test both in the lab and in the field.  The essential thing that distinguishes the physicals sciences (that work) is ultimate empirical testing and possible falsification,  from philosophy  which is all vapor and abstraction.  Mathematics is a peculiar thing. It is not a science because it is not empirical  but  its claims have to be validated by proofs  which are formulated by mathematicians,  then read and checked by other mathematicians.  Checking a proof for correctness is empirical even though all of the subject matter is abstract.

 

I really like the above, Bob. You are usually frustrating to read but the above is very nice, naturally-flowing exposition. I don't like Rand's fiction style (except Anthem,) but I love her non-fiction style, and for the same reason. How many damned dozens of times do I really need to know how the light was coming into a room, a train station, a valley? Drives me absolutely nuts.

Now, about what I was saying.

JTS said "In the Blaylock video I posted above, he explains how vaccination can cause autism."

You responded "CAN cause  or DOES  cause?   There is not  substantial clinical evidence that immunizations cause autism.  CAN does not count.  DOES  counts."

I responded "Bob concludes that since dose X doesn’t always kill, it cannot be named the cause of death of patients in category A." Do I misunderstand your CAN and DOES meaning?

Patients come in all pre-existing conditions states. They come with varying levels of pre-existing toxins in their blood and brains, pre-existing immune system anomalies. Some people will die from dose X of some "alleged" toxin, some will merely become ill and recover, while some will register no effects. Likewise, the contents of vaccination shots can be the cause of autism in those cases where the patient has the requisite preexisting conditions, even while the majority do not possess those preexisting conditions and suffer no harm. That could be what is going on. There is no fundamental scientific problem in the fact that the shots usually have no effect on people.

You seem to want to eliminate it all by sheer logic of scientific procedure, and I think the attempt fails. The logic of scientific procedure says that vaccination shots are a very promising place to continue looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Duplicate

(Jon - LOL... please redo the text here and delete this comment. I deleted your other post for being a duplicate. :) )

I don't have that text anymore. Nature doesn't do science, people do, table of money, is that what I had there? Didn't I leave it up?  I think you deleted it. I could try to redo it, but it isn't coming back to me very well. Those are artistic snapshot moments with me, Michael. I can't just snap my fingers and...  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The funding of science is a separate issue from the science itself.  As I said, Science, as such,  is concerned with the way the world works, not what is right or wrong.  Nature does not care what is right and wrong. Humans care what is right and wrong.

No, they are not separate.

Nature does not do science, humans do science.

And humans will alter what they say, what they do, what they publish, even what they will testify to in court, if the pile of cash on the table grows tall enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if I correctly understand Bob Kolker. Someone takes a bullet to the head at point blank range and dies almost instantly. Most people would think it's a reasonable hypothesis that the cause of the death is the bullet to the head at point blank range. But this would be sloppy thinking. Maybe it's just coincidence that he took a bullet to the head at point blank range and died very soon after. To conclude that there is a cause and effect relationship would be post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A cause always produces the effect, not merely sometimes. A single example to the contrary is enough to prove that it is not the cause. T. C. Fry (a health nut) took a bullet to the head at point blank range and survived! It contributed to his health problems but didn't kill him. This proves that a bullet to the head at point blank range does not cause death. Anyone who thinks it did cause death in a specific case is doing sloppy thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max said:

Huh? Did we read the same article? I think Atwood is very fair to Marshall in his article, he gives simply the facts that demolish the notion of Marshall as a lone fighter against those stubborn people from "settled science". He mentions all the studies that were done at the time to check the bacterium theory. He also tried to contact Marshall to comment for his article, but Marshall had not replied. Interesting is that Marshall in 1991 wrote: “In my naïveté I expected H. pylori to be immediately accepted as the cause of duodenal ulcer,” [but] “the presence of H. pylori in many apparently healthy persons has made its pathogenic role harder to understand and has delayed wide acceptance of the new bacterium as an important pathogen” (Marshall 1991). 

Already before I'd read this article, I had my doubts, as I'd found how soon after his first publication a large study was conducted to test the theory, and how soon Marshall's views were vindicated, and how many awards he has won since then:  the Warren Alpert Prize, the Australian Medical Association Award, the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research, the Gairdner Foundation International Award, de Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize, the Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society, and last but not least the Nobel prize, to name just a few. He can hardly complain about lack of recognition.

You're in deny and fight mode. You didn't read and absorb anything that I wrote.

1 hour ago, Max said:

But perhaps you can show me some of all those non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation and sloppy assumptions in that article?

You would need to be focused on trying to understand rather than on trying to fight. As things stand, you're trying to not understand what I wrote. I'm really not interested in going back over my last post trying to explain it to you while you try not to understand it.

How old are you, Max? Were you alive and paying attention back then? Were you aware of the issue while it was happening in the early 80s?

I don't care if you want to deny and reject what I've observed, and that you want to believe whatever conclusion you've come to after having been exposed to the issue for 7 seconds. I'm really not interested working to disabuse you of your ignorance. So here's a better idea: If you're truly interested in what actually happened, put your own effort into researching what I commented on (rather than what I didn't comment on but which you've decided is the same thing); lose the mindset of confirmation bias and gotcha.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jts said:

Let's see if I correctly understand Bob Kolker. Someone takes a bullet to the head at point blank range and dies almost instantly. Most people would think it's a reasonable hypothesis that the cause of the death is the bullet to the head at point blank range. But this would be sloppy thinking. Maybe it's just coincidence that he took a bullet to the head at point blank range and died very soon after. To conclude that there is a cause and effect relationship would be post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A cause always produces the effect, not merely sometimes. A single example to the contrary is enough to prove that it is not the cause. T. C. Fry (a health nut) took a bullet to the head at point blank range and survived! It contributed to his health problems but didn't kill him. This proves that a bullet to the head at point blank range does not cause death. Anyone who thinks it did cause death in a specific case is doing sloppy thinking.

 

I think you have correctly understood him. His expectation is reasonable in say, chemistry or physics. It is not reasonable in medical science.

Radiation is another example. No one seriously doubts the effects of radiation, indeed calculated lifetime exposure accumulation (in nuclear workers, for example) leads to accurate and predictable boosts in cancer rates. Statistical rates. Totally unacceptable in other sciences.

Two grams of chlorine are experimentally identical, two human beings are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, they are not separate.

Nature does not do science, humans do science.

And humans will alter what they say, what they do, what they publish, even what they will testify to in court, if the pile of cash on the table grows tall enough.

Like I said here several years ago: A religion does not act on people, people act on a religion.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, they are not separate.

Nature does not do science, humans do science.

And humans will alter what they say, what they do, what they publish, even what they will testify to in court, if the pile of cash on the table grows tall enough.

And this point goes deeper than just getting people to say and act against what they know. Biased funding (and coordinated reputation attacks such as Jonathan was observing in another medical area as early as the 1980s) have affected what got researched and what got shut down. We think we have a virginal objective set of knowledge we can judge the vaccination shots hypothesis against, but do we really?

Another thing: So, so many shots are required to attend school, and they hound families like the IRS targets conservative groups (Lois Lerner.) Even shots for the most obscure low-risk bullshit are required. That’s not normal behavior, and it stands out to some of us. They really, really, love those shots. Maybe I will dig one up later, you should see the list of required shots to attend most public schools. They LOVE ‘em and YOU will, too. You WILL. It’s not normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jts said:

Let's see if I correctly understand Bob Kolker. Someone takes a bullet to the head at point blank range and dies almost instantly. Most people would think it's a reasonable hypothesis that the cause of the death is the bullet to the head at point blank range. But this would be sloppy thinking. Maybe it's just coincidence that he took a bullet to the head at point blank range and died very soon after. To conclude that there is a cause and effect relationship would be post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A cause always produces the effect, not merely sometimes. A single example to the contrary is enough to prove that it is not the cause. T. C. Fry (a health nut) took a bullet to the head at point blank range and survived! It contributed to his health problems but didn't kill him. This proves that a bullet to the head at point blank range does not cause death. Anyone who thinks it did cause death in a specific case is doing sloppy thinking.

 

It is what the bullet does to the brain that causes death

A bullet to  the brain  mashes and rips brain tissue so that the brain no longer functions as a brain should.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I wish that were true.

But it's only true in some imaginary utopia.

You can't have science without scientists. You can't have scientists without money. Today's scientists like government money. And many do sloppy sloppy work for unearned money and call it science. And they squelch scientific inquiry in the name of "science" to keep their money flows open.

It's all interconnected.

Michael

The science is about nature and what it does or does not do.  Funding is about paying the scientists and providing  resources to the scientists in order for them to science.  Funding as such will not  prove or disprove a hypothesis.  Unfortunately there is just as much funding for badly done science as the for well done science,  Probably more than for science done right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Poppycock.

When science is funded by its victims, there's not only a big honking lot of morality in it, there's a ton of immorality.

Let's do like this. Remove government from science and let the scientists survive on the free market. Do you think that's a good idea? I think it's wonderful.

Another thought, to you believe it's possible for people to become corrupted by unearned money, even scientists?

Hmmmm?...

:) 

These are moral issues that go right to the heart of scientific credibility.

If you want to know "how the world  works," really works, cut government funding from science. Then talk to me about ethics.

Michael

There was a time when governments did not fund science.  Rich guys funded science out of their own pockets.  Those days have apparently passed.  Without  government funding which means the extraction of tax loot from the public   we would not have manned missions to the moon or machines capable  of  measuring the Higgs Field.   The government is involved even in marginal cases.  The transistor was developed at Bell Telephone Laboratory 1947.  But Bell could not have done it without a monopoly granted to ATT as  regulated monopoly.  It is frustrating. I would prefer that our theory and technology could be developed  without any government involvement but that just isn't happening.  If the government did not license ATT as a regulated monopoly we would have waited a long time for the transistor (which is the main basis of our economy now)  to be developed.  Maybe it would not have been developed without government involvement.  I am unable so say that for sure but it seems that way. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is what the bullet does to the brain that causes death

A bullet to  the brain  mashes and rips brain tissue so that the brain no longer functions as a brain should.

 

According ro Dr. Russell Blaylock and the evidence he presents, vaccines do roughly the same to the brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There was a time when governments did not fund science.  Rich guys funded science out of their own pockets.  Those days have apparently passed.  Without  government funding which means the extraction of tax loot from the public   we would not have manned missions to the moon or machines capable  of  measuring the Higgs Field.   The government is involved even in marginal cases.

Bob,

Since that is true, you don't get to say science and ethics are separate and have it mean anything real.

Science is now communicated to the public--and often implemented--through propaganda outlets. They decide for others what is true and not true. Falsification, trial and error, etc., are window dressing if they clash with propaganda priorities.

Tell me where science exists differently. You can't.

 As you yourself just said, the days of otherwise have passed.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jts said:

According ro Dr. Russell Blaylock and the evidence he presents, vaccines do roughly the same to the brain.

 

I don't think that I'd call what Blaylock presented "evidence" so much as theorizing, and some of his theorizing contradicts actual solid evidence.

I think you'd do better to focus on facts -- what is known and not known -- rather than on personalities.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I don't think that I'd call what Blaylock presented "evidence" so much as theorizing, and some of his theorizing contradicts actual solid evidence.

I think you'd do better to focus on facts -- what is known and not known -- rather than on personalities.

J

Did you read some of his books and listen to some of his lectures? I did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now