jts

Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Max said:

Obviously a crackpot who sells his own snake oil (a "brain repair formula"), and a conspiracy nut. It is not advisable to trust such people.

Max,

So, is it to you more advisable to trust the establishment people who run endless war for profit, support an enormous fake news propaganda media, and have been caught time and time again using unsuspecting people as guinea pigs?

:evil:  :) 

Let me be devil's advocate for a second. As I understand your post, you only got your information about this guy from other people. Is that correct? I mean, you didn't look at anything he had to say. Am I right in that supposition (based on the tenor of your post), or have you actually looked to see if he has anything interesting to present?

If you only got your info from other people, then your advice to not trust him comes from information your gleaned second-hand and some suppositions you probably added on your own. Correct?

Is that rational?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for Russell Blaylock. I don't know his work. I'm advocating for a more open view of looking at things, especially if brainstorming the causes of an epidemic.

I agree that many times there are "conspiracy nuts." But I have also seen "conspiracy nuts" turn out to be correct.

I used to do like you do. Just dismiss something out of hand based on second hand information. I lost my certainty in that when I began checking the facts of everyone, not just the respectable people.

I highly recommend first hand looking at everything. But it's your mind, your time, your values...

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

So, is it to you more advisable to trust the establishment people who run endless war for profit, support an enormous fakes news propaganda media, and have been caught time and time again using unsuspecting people as guinea pigs?

:evil:  :) 

Let me be devil's advocate for a second. As I understand your post, you only got your information about this guy from other people. Is that correct? I mean, you didn't look at anything he had to say. Am I right in that supposition (based on the tenor of your post), or have you actually looked to see if he has anything interesting to present?

If you only got your info from other people, then your advice to not trust him comes from information your gleaned second-hand and some suppositions you probably added on your own. Correct?

I'm not going to listen for more than an hour to a man who is obviously a snake oil selling quack. Does he have written about his theories in a peer reviewed journal? Then I might perhaps read such an article. But the information I've read about him on many sites is not contradictory and is enough for me to dismiss him. Just as I would dismiss a flat-earther, an astrologer or an homeopath. It is more rational to listen to real scientists (without necessarily agreeing with all of them, that is not the point) than to waste my time on a quack. 

 

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Is that rational?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for Russell Blaylock. I don't know his work. I'm advocating for a more open view of looking at things, especially if brainstorming the causes of an epidemic.

I agree that many times there are "conspiracy nuts." But I have also seen "conspiracy nuts" turn out to be correct.

I used to do like you do. Just dismiss something out of hand based on second hand information. I lost my certainty in that when I began checking the facts of everyone, not just the respectable people.

I highly recommend first hand looking at everything. But it's your mind, your time, your values...

Michael

Everything? Are you also studying Flat-Earth theories or reading an astrology manual to be able to have an opinion on those? That would in my humble opinion not be very rational...

Share this post


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

With you it's about trust, meaning authority. That's religion, not science. Practise the Objectivist virtue of intellectual independence.

Saying that you'd better not trust certain people (would you buy a used car from them?) does not imply that you automatically trust all other people, a rather elementary fallacy. Further, even if you trust someone, that still doesn't mean that you automatically yield to his authority, but that you at least can take his arguments seriously. Objectivists seem always to think that they practice the virtue of intellectual independence, very funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Max said:

Does he have written about his theories in a peer reviewed journal?

Max,

My respect for peer reviewed journals has tanked.

I no longer find that to be an automatic mark of credibility. 

Just look at the mess they made.

25 minutes ago, Max said:

Everything? Are you also studying Flat-Earth theories or reading an astrology manual to be able to have an opinion on those? That would in my humble opinion not be very rational...

To by honest, I do not disparage them as much as I used to, albeit I don't (and can't :) ) give any credence to their beliefs. I give an enormous credence to the storytelling involved, though. So I tend to look at them through that lens--and not just mythology. I look at the neuroscience of how story creates neural networks, and things like that.

Also, I look for "signs of approach" for lack of a better way of saying it. The quacks you disparage often have a way of looking at things--the approach so to speak--that is far more correct than the academic way, but their proof and methods are superstitions and so on. So if I find an approach that is worth pursuing, I think my time well spent, even if I disagree with everything else.

Lastly, I look at wisdom, that is, how a person creates his own character within the confines of his knowledge and beliefs. I find there are many, many, many good people among the quacks--people I would leave my children with for a while. I can't say that about many of the "respectable people." Or, maybe I can, who knows about who they don't know?, but not with the way they are acting these days. I don't want most of them near me and my family.

Apparently peer review does not include good character since so many people of awful character have passed with flying colors. (Just think about how the entire scientific community sold out on manmade climate change or how "peer reviewed" assholes have indoctrinated an entire generation of kids. Lots of integrity there so long as the paycheck keeps coming from the government, huh? :) )

I, for one, think choosing to cultivate good character is rational.

Many of my so-called intellectual superiors do not share this view.

My mind and soul are not for sale.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Max said:

Saying that you'd better not trust certain people (would you buy a used car from them?) does not imply that you automatically trust all other people, a rather elementary fallacy. Further, even if you trust someone, that still doesn't mean that you automatically yield to his authority, but that you at least can take his arguments seriously. Objectivists seem always to think that they practice the virtue of intellectual independence, very funny!

Your distrust of Dr. Russell Blaylock seemed to be based on your trust of majority opinion and/or government approval. I reject the whole idea of trust except where it is unavoidable.

Question:  What is your definition of 'quack'? How did you reach your conclusion that Dr. Russell Blaylock is a quack? 

He has the standard credentials, went to medical school and all that. Let me guess. You consider him a quack merely because he says things contrary to the establishment. Did I guess right?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 11:28 AM, william.scherk said:

Yeah, "civil tone" bootlickers threaten a 'taint.' Is it any worse than defamation about "p***philes, boyf**kers, boy-p***y"?  What is 'tolerable' and what is 'vandals, public taints'?

#C**ts

William,

I tried to send you a private message, but for some reason you can't receive messages. I imagine your limit has been used up, so you will probably need to delete some messages to make room for new ones. (Not guaranteed, and I don't have time to look into it right now.)

So I'll do this in public and on to my issue.

Please do not contact Kat privately again about OL matters. She wants you banned and has wanted that for years. In fact, you are one of the main reason she no longer posts on OL.

Keep meddling and going for power. Just keep it up...

If I ever have to choose between you and Kat, guess who I will choose? I have carried your participation against the will of many, many people over the years. Believe me, they let me know loud and clear at times. Now you're messing with Kat and I can't carry it further...

Pipe down and work out your issues with Jon (or ignore each other or whatever)--or just don't post here anymore.

Thanks.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science popularly rendered these days through PC academia and msm is GIGO spread over us like rancid butter and you're not allowed to object to that crap.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does he have written about his theories in a peer reviewed journal? Then I might perhaps read such an article.

 

On the question of whether Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote stuff that got published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. For people who think that matters. Here is a list.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/58885645_Russell_L_Blaylock

 

Share this post


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

William,

I tried to send you a private message, but for some reason you can't receive messages. I imagine your limit has been used up, so you will probably need to delete some messages to make room for new ones. (Not guaranteed, and I don't have time to look into it right now.)

So I'll do this in public and on to my issue.

Please do not contact Kat privately again about OL matters. She wants you banned and has wanted that for years. In fact, you are one of the main reason she no longer posts on OL.

Keep meddling and going for power. Just keep it up...

If I ever have to choose between you and Kat, guess who I will choose? I have carried your participation against the will of many, many people over the years. Believe me, they let me know loud and clear at times. Now you're messing with Kat and I can't carry it further...

Pipe down and work out your issues with Jon (or ignore each other or whatever)--or just don't post here anymore.

Thanks.

Michael

Yesterday I also tried to send him a message, after reading what Michael just posted from The Enabler.

All it said was "So then, calling me mentally ill over and over is not defamation? Only you can be victim of defamation?"

He's a magnificent turd. He couldn't have a polite discussion if his life depended on it, and he doesn't try because he is not here for that.

He can't resist condescension, he doesn't have it in him. It would be easy to work out — forget about me and stick to ideas — but it seems he is incapable of forgetting about me and sticking to ideas. He can't let go of his stalker obsession with me. He can't do it.

His presence is toxic by plan because that is his reason for being here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80s, the medical and scientific communities ridiculed the hell out of doctors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for going against the "settled science" that no bacterium could live in the acids of the human stomach, and that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress. Even after proving their case on helicobacter pylori, it took the snarky authorities years to accept reality, let go of their pissy mindsets and judgments of Marshall and Warren as kooks and snake oilers.

Which mindset is more disturbing and dangerous, that of kooks who make false speculations and come to mistaken, unsupported conclusions, or that of people who pose as authorities and impede or shut down advancements because of their own brand of kookiness? Whose ulterior motives are worse, the creep trying to make a buck off of families of affected children, or established authorities whose reputations and pocketbooks will suffer when, say, Tagamet is instantly no longer bringing in billions easing ulcers?

J

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen Stuttle said it best one week ago:

William, you won't like my "best guess."  You like gossip, inquisiting nosily.  You like posting gobs of stuff.  You like getting a rise from people and then whining about their not treating you respectfully.  You crave attention, which you wouldn't have much success at getting on liberal sites. You aren't seeking rational discourse and aren't actually "a fan of reason," as you describe yourself, but Objecivish sites give you a place where you can preen ruffled feathers over people's lack of desire to discuss issues with you and where you can adopt a superiority tone tut-tuting their supposed (sometimes actual, granted) cultishness.

Ellen

 

Get a rise, then whine. Exactly what he did to me. 

He pushed me over the edge so that he could cry victim and demand my banning.

Now I will shut up about him while he does about me. As of yesterday, he still refuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Back in the 80s, the medical and scientific communities ridiculed the hell out of doctors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for going against the "settled science" that no bacterium could live in the acids of the human stomach, and that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress. Even after proving their case on helicobacter pylori, it took the snarky authorities years to accept reality, let go of their pissy mindsets and judgments of Marshall and Warren as kooks and snake oilers.

Jonathan,

Nowadays the concept of neuroplasticity (the mind physically changing the brain) is not only commonplace, it is causing great excitement among scientists of many different disciplines. But not so long ago, it was considered real wacko stuff.

Even neuroscientists like Richard Davidson were constantly accused of trying to infect science with religion, practicing pseudoscience, blah blah blah. And then came the fMRI scans of Buddhist monks. :) 

And a lot of other corroborative stuff, too, of course. This stuff exploded all over the science realm.

And did the gatekeepers ever change their ways, even with egg all over their faces? Hell no. This very minute they're out calling lots of other people quacks as they extol the "science of neuroplasticity." :) 

Gotta love 'em, poor things...

They can't help themselves.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 7:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

That's not all you did. You said "this kind of reasoning" leads to superstition, implying that those poor parents in the video are superstitious fools who believe in black cat stories. You know, the parents who watched their triplet infants be vaccinated, then watched each immediately turn into an autistic zombie, one after another, then concluded there was a connection with the vaccines.

Come on, man...

What's more, the "that kind of reasoning" that you disparage so much can also lead to scientific breakthroughs. In fact, that's the ONLY way scientific breakthroughs happen.

Not one scientific discovery started out as an already proven fact. Every single one started out with "that kind of reasoning."

Michael

THe difference is with sloppy thinking cause is immediately inferred  from a before-after observation. Jumping to the conclusion is a fallacy which has a name:  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  After this therefore because of this.  In a scientific context   the connection between a possible cause class of events and a class of possible effect events is thoroughly examined and a --mechanism-- of connection is hypothesized.  The mechanism then is thoroughly tested in a lab.  BTW  if  event  A  happens  and event B does not always  happen following A   then  type(A)  cannot be a cause for type(B).  The aforementioned  issues illustrates the difference between  superstition (black cat  stories)  and  physical science.   Immediately jumping to the conclusion of a causal connection is sloppy thinking. 

When the connection between smoking and cancer  was discerned the tobacco companies  claimed (of course)  it was an example of the post hoc fallacy.  But further investigation showed that cigarette paper when burned leaves small amounts of radioactive polonium in the  air sacs of the lungs.  Smoking long enough  produces enough of the radioactive polonium deposits to increase the probability of lung cancer.   Here it was discovered that a radioactive substance is left in the long  so as to increase the probability of lung cancer.  In short  a mechanism connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer was uncovered.  

Clinical studies of the various immunizations  have uncovered no  genetic changes that might cause autism.  BTW  no one knows for sure (at this time) what causes autism.  Genetic anomalies are suspected but not yet proved by clinical  examination or laboratory studies.   So the firm conclusion that immunization leads to autism   is  yet to be shown.  The firm belief without the underlying establishment of a mechanism for genetic change  is  a clear example of "black cat"  thinking.  Sloppy, sloppy.   

I will give you a hint.  When someone says events of type A  causes events of type B,  the burden of proof is on THEM.  At this point there is no lab based evidence that immunization causes autism and the counter examples I gave  support the doubt that immunization causes autism.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will give you a hint.  When someone says events of type A  causes events of type B,  the burden of proof is on THEM.

Bob,

I will give you a bigger hint. When a sequence of events is widespread and someone says events in that sequence of type A COULD NEVER cause events of type B, run from THEM.

Don't worry about their burdens of proof. Their kind of mentality helped cause your own burdens.

They are not just sloppy in their thinking, they do not have truth or the well being of the victims among their intentions. They may have some other agenda, goosing their personal vanity about always being right, acquiring and keeping gobs of money, virtue signaling they are members of the Good Tribe, whatever. But they are not interested in fixing the problem at root. They are interested in ignoring and/or humiliating the victims (often giving lip service, though) while scapegoating those with limited capacity who are trying to fix the problem to show their own superiority.

Oddly enough, many parents of autistic kids were sanctimonious like that before they experienced the switch on-switch off effect of taking their kids to be vaccinated, returning with zombies (the effect is generally immediate), then listening to the superior people tell them there was no link between their suddenly damaged kids and the vaccines--don't even think about mentioning something kooky like that and keep your questions to yourself. These are the most radical. On top of trying to fix their kid, they feel they have to atone for the sin of sheepleness.

A scientist is not an automatically virtuous person who is interested in truth. He creates weapons of mass destruction just as easily as he creates marvels of life-enhancing procedures. Hell, he creates propaganda scams on a massive scale like manmade global warming knowing what his work will be used for. And he goes to bed happy in all cases.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, jts said:

Your distrust of Dr. Russell Blaylock seemed to be based on your trust of majority opinion and/or government approval. I reject the whole idea of trust except where it is unavoidable.

Trust is almost everywhere unavoidable. You have to trust the people who built your car that it is safe, that the bridge that you cross won't collapse, that other drivers won't collide with you, etc. The amount of control that you yourself can exert in life is very small compared to that what you have to accept implicitly by trusting other people's accomplishments. No, I don't think that "regular" doctors are always right, but when I can choose, I prefer those doctors who adhere to the principle of evidence based medicine over those alarmists who see conspiracies everywhere.

15 hours ago, jts said:

Question:  What is your definition of 'quack'? How did you reach your conclusion that Dr. Russell Blaylock is a quack? 

A sure giveaway is that he sells his own snake oil, a "brain repair formula" concoction, that allegedly has "great promise in preventing and treating neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s dementia and Parkinson’s disease". Of course you should take those pills the rest of your life... Further his demonizing of monosodium glutamate, aspartame and GMO foods, all the usual stuff of "alternative medicine".

 

15 hours ago, jts said:

He has the standard credentials, went to medical school and all that. Let me guess. You consider him a quack merely because he says things contrary to the establishment. Did I guess right?

He may have the standard credentials, but he won't be the first one who after a normal career goes to the dark side. Let me guess. You are one of those Objectivist types who have a John Galt complex: seeing in every kook with funny ideas a lone genius who is battling those evil state scientists and the "establishment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Back in the 80s, the medical and scientific communities ridiculed the hell out of doctors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for going against the "settled science" that no bacterium could live in the acids of the human stomach, and that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress. Even after proving their case on helicobacter pylori, it took the snarky authorities years to accept reality, let go of their pissy mindsets and judgments of Marshall and Warren as kooks and snake oilers.

Which mindset is more disturbing and dangerous, that of kooks who make false speculations and come to mistaken, unsupported conclusions, or that of people who pose as authorities and impede or shut down advancements because of their own brand of kookiness? Whose ulterior motives are worse, the creep trying to make a buck off of families of affected children, or established authorities whose reputations and pocketbooks will suffer when, say, Tagamet is instantly no longer bringing in billions easing ulcers?

J

I think it isn't quite so black-and-white as that. For an article that brings some nuance to that story, see https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Max said:

 No, I don't think that "regular" doctors are always right, but when I can choose, I prefer those doctors who adhere to the principle of evidence based medicine over those alarmists who see conspiracies everywhere.

You go by consensus.

 

Share this post


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

 At this point there is no lab based evidence that immunization causes autism 

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

 

Share this post


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

 

A scientist is not an automatically virtuous person who is interested in truth. He creates weapons of mass destruction just as easily as he creates marvels of life-enhancing procedures. Hell, he creates propaganda scams on a massive scale like manmade global warming knowing what his work will be used for. And he goes to bed happy in all cases.

Michael

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.

Share this post


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

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

 

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

Share this post


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

 

I think it isn't quite so black-and-white as that. For an article that brings some nuance to that story, see https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth

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.

J

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

With you it's about trust, meaning authority. That's religion, not science. Practise the Objectivist virtue of intellectual independence.

 

OL is now on a war footing.

--Brant

Share this post


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

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

Can and does. You wanted a mechanism. Russell Blaylock explains the mechanism. Now you don't want a mechanism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...