Cleveland Clinic Doctor Fuels Vaccine Debate — Again

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Agartha

eh, no. did you read the wiki? or even a definition? Empirical evidence by definition is the evidence of observation, period. You are welcome to argue with the dictionary.

Scientific observation, it says so even in your link: "Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists. "

Anecdotal, on the other hand, is personal experience by anybody.

I don't need a wiki explanation, I use empirical evidence in my job every day and I spent three years at uni differentiating one from the other.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Agartha

eh, no. did you read the wiki? or even a definition? Empirical evidence by definition is the evidence of observation, period. You are welcome to argue with the dictionary.

I've argued with the dictionary before, lol. I couldn't blame anyone. I took Latin for many years and I'm an amateur etymologist. The way we use words today is very different from original intent. As well, each profession has its own dictionary, so to speak. What is said in one profession means something completely different in another.

It's hell, I tells ya. Code for the pros. Vulgar for the simple.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I think you're not understanding.

To me, for my personal research and my own pool of knowledge, it is empirical. I ran a TEST on my middle child.

I do understand, but you are not a scientist conducting a controlled test, controlled in such way there are no variables influencing the outcome. If you did that would be empirical observation.

A random test on your child is anedoctal. You may disagree but that's how science works, sorry.

a reply to: Agartha

You're proving his point. I observed, gathered data, ran a test attempting to prove my bias wrong, observed again, gathered data, recorded it, and here we are. And I've recorded some of it here for you.

I didn't just, "all my babies been made stupid by the needle juice, they banging their heads off the walls cause I ignore them and feed them nothing but cheetoes! Ya got ta believe me!"

Think about it.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I think you're not understanding.

To me, for my personal research and my own pool of knowledge, it is empirical. I ran a TEST on my middle child.

I do understand, but you are not a scientist conducting a controlled test, controlled in such way there are no variables influencing the outcome. If you did that would be empirical observation.

A random test on your child is anedoctal. You may disagree but that's how science works, sorry.

For someone claiming to be a scientist, you made loads of assumptions about how I conducted my test.

That being said, my data set belongs to me. No desire to prove to anyone. Not patient enough. Especially with people who claim they're scientists, but make assumptions about how something was done without even asking.

Time to go back to the basics, friend.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

what we are dealing with here aside from the egos staunch unwillingness to admit wrong or even acknowledge the existence of nuance, is the deep indoctrination and programming of an institutionalized mind. Its very sad to see and as we are experiencing first hand is almost impossible to reason with. Appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, character assassination, appeals to absurdity....the list is growing.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You're proving his point. I observed, gathered data, ran a test attempting to prove my bias wrong, observed again, gathered data, recorded it, and here we are. And I've recorded some of it here for you.

I didn't just, "all my babies been made stupid by the needle juice, they banging their heads off the walls cause I ignore them and feed them nothing but cheetoes! Ya got ta believe me!"

Think about it.

See my reply above. That's not what a controlled test is. Yours is personal experience, anedoctal, could not be empirical unless you meet certain conditions which are necessary for a real controlled scientific test. You did not meet those conditions. It was just you doing an experiment with your child. I don't know how else to explain it.

Scientists observing and recording data after a well designed research method in a controlled environment : empirical.

A dad experimenting and observing his child: anedoctal.



I don't know how I can explain it any different.

a reply to: Agartha

youre cherry picking. Another definition for you. Notice the PRIMARY, and FIRST, as well the second definition, have nothing explicitly to do with science.

Definition of empirical 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment 4 : of or relating to empiricism

www.merriam-webster.com...


care to revise?

And what makes a scientist? Again....according to our trusty dusty dictionary

efinition of scientist 1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

www.merriam-webster.com...


Definition of science:

Definition of science 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

Notice the FIRST and PRIMARY definition.


Now, anything beyond agreeing to the primary dictionary definition can only be viewed as a chronic unwillingness to acknowledge known and accepted realities of word meanings and definitions and instead creating your own. I think most people call that deceiving ones self.....or being delusional.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
I know a few doctors who do not like all the vaccines they are pushing on kids. There are some who are willing to accept the initial monetary prize for talking a person into getting a vaccine though. I know people who work in doctors offices and know there is a reward offered for first time vaccinations. It is only about twenty five bucks, but get enough of them and it adds up quickly to pay nurses wages.

This "reward" is paid to the doctors by insurance companies as vaccinating people costs far less than treating them for the preventable diseases.
And as far as I know this only happens in a few countries.
The world isn't the USA.

I wonder if this is true. It appears it is more than twenty five bucks if they get a lot of people to get fully vaccinated. It appears the bonus is four hundred bucks a patient. More than enough incentive to get doctors to give shots when there is little to no risk. wellnessandequality.com...

I do notice there is an exclusion for people who have violent reactions, like myself and grandchildren have to the flu vaccine. I also get a bad reaction to the DTAP, had one a couple of years ago, but upon researching it it is probably the pertussis part that is causing the problem. I had pneumonia type symptoms which is the exact pertussis reaction if you already have the immunity. Next time I will only get the DT.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: mrthumpy

Thank you.

Joking aside, I conveyed an idea that should be taken into consideration when performing the science. Method is important. I simply explained it in a way anyone can understand.

No you didn't. Try again

a reply to: mrthumpy

uh, i know you are but what am i?


is that the highest level of intellectual acumen you can bring to the table?

if i was the quibbling, bean counting type i might report this as spam/trolling because it literally contributes NOTHING to this thread.

how about YOU try again....next time with some substance or at least a quasi pretend mock argument, even a bad one would be better than the drive by nonsense this is.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

To me, for my personal research and my own pool of knowledge, it is empirical. I ran a TEST on my middle child.

An uncontrolled, unblinded clinical study with a cohort size of 1 that has not been replicated?

You've detailed in fancy language exactly what an anecdote is. Well done!

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.

Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)

Makes me wonder if you have kids who have been vaccinated.

My middle child had a horrible fever and started acting out for weeks. It took months to get him back on track with his behavior.

My youngest, who was severely premature, went from completely peaceful and observant to mad hatter less than two hours.

My oldest started being immediately rebellious and threw fits when he got what he asked for. When he got what he wanted!

I don't need an article to tell me what I witnessed.

The oldest is perfectly reasonable and among the smartest and most social in his class. The middle is very smart and social, but has an amazing penchant for selective hearing, as well as having an issue wherein he talks like Yoda learning pig Latin... And believes he sounds completely reasonable when he doesn't. I tend to believe that is somewhat his personality though.

The youngest is a master of time and space, and he's an excellent mimic. But his desire for constant stimulation is beyond the normal scope.

I'm not a lame duck parent, so I didn't let the symptoms turn into a kind of learned autism. But I, not really believing the stories, ended up seeing them first hand.

I think parents should hold children responsible for their actions, regardless.

But it has been hell getting every single one back on track. I believe the typical childhood vaccines, as they are, greatly affect the brain, or atleast overburden the body so that the brain is not heeded well.

I know for a fact that they caused each of my kids to take on destructive behavior and regress by 6 months to a year in development.

Is the benefit worth the consequences? My oldest might prove that to be true. Still waiting on the other two to get to the point where that can be determined.

The speech of an intelligent parent should factor into your pool of knowledge in some way, unless you want your research to be found incomplete.

Before they were vaccinated, by the way, they never got sick. After, they've been sick every three months, each on a rotating schedule it seems almost. The middle child, with him I waited for 3 years before getting the first set started. Before that time, he was not a sick zoo animal. We got home and had a rabid orangutan.

I seen it with my own two eyes.

I purposefully held off with him to let him develop more than the oldest to see if I wasn't imagining things with the oldest.

Turns out I wasn't. My kids aren't lab rats, but since medicine wants to treat them as such for them to be granted an education (ugly trend, by the way), I figure why not take advantage of their treachery and see for myself.

Most parents don't have the guts to be so objective. And I learned that parents against vaccines were not lying about their child's behavior. Wicked to behold.

But I also was determined to prove that the behavior problems also had a lot to do with lame parenting. I proved that, too.

So far, evidence suggests that the side effects stink, but they can be overcome, up to this point, at least.

I have thanks, two kids, the elder is 17 and the younger is nearly 11.
Both fully vaccinated and both in very good physical and mental health.

And judging by what you've written, you've proven absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Pardon?

thats a great link, I read the article and am now going through the comments which are very enlightening. If you havent read the comments section you might enjoy it, i know i am.

One thing that seems to be coming more clear as i get deeper into this is there are ALOT of qualifier words used by those who want to downplay the importance of something, OR those who want to exaggerate the importance of something. In either case the use of those words is troubling for those who just want the unvarnished truth. I am always ecstatic when i can actually get a doctor say "i dont know" because its so bloody rare. Most "professionals" are trained out of the ability to admit they dont know something, probably has something to do with "keeping up appearances"....but thats just my personal theory

So when you read through that gentlemans explanation on formaldehyde and how benign it is in the body you have to really lookout for those words.

changingminds.org...

I have read most of the comments thanks.
Dunning-Kruger is very strong within them.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So then why are they forced to take vaccinations when the warnings run to some 30-40 known side effects.

Because all medications have some form of side effect. That's why there's reams of 'side effect' warnings on simple things like paracetamol and ibuprofen. Even too much water will kill you.

Why did the Federal Government in the USA pick up the tab for vaccine induced injury and not the vaccine peddlars?

Because the 'vaccine peddlars[sic]' are not in the charity business. But the govt DOES have an interest in a healthy, disease-free society whereby common epidemics caused by easily spread, socially communicative diseases can be halted and, in the long run, make for a happier people and less stress on social/medical agencies.

Does common sense elude you? Or is everything you don't understand a conspiracy theory?

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: mrthumpy


if i was the quibbling, bean counting type i might report this as spam/trolling because it literally contributes NOTHING to this thread.

Exactly the same response I could have given to Tarzan

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: mrthumpy

uh, i know you are but what am i?


is that the highest level of intellectual acumen you can bring to the table?

if i was the quibbling, bean counting type i might report this as spam/trolling because it literally contributes NOTHING to this thread.

how about YOU try again....next time with some substance or at least a quasi pretend mock argument, even a bad one would be better than the drive by nonsense this is.

Do YOU have any response to the link I posted? It is on topic after all