Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that video earlier.

The purported severity of her seizure 48 hours ago doesn't raise any red flags with me, because the very nature of seizures is that they come and go and can vary in severity. More damning would be the idea that she is perhaps a typical epileptic rather than a new case of dystonia, because a real epileptic will tell you that they can be hit out of nowhere with a seizure severe enough to cause them to lose bowel control, and mere minutes later the seizure might be over and they will appear normal. My understanding of dystonia is that the seizures are more low-level and constant, but the severity can come and go there as well, as discussed by the dystonic patient in the video jinx posted earlier.

We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments. I'm not going to make a definitive proclamation one way or the other about her specific medical condition, because I haven't seen her lab tests (both before and after treatment,) and I don't know her or her doctor personally. Is it possible the whole thing is a huge scam? I suppose it is, but that would be silly, because there are hundreds if not thousands of other patients out there who have received similar, documented relief from these treatments. This one just happened to get picked up by the media. Not everyone wants to have their life thrown out there, you know--just last Thursday, I was sitting at a table with a dozen other women with autistic children who are in the process of recovering or are already completely recovered, and we were talking about the fact that I have been posting progress videos of my son on YouTube. As I was surprised to learn that night, I am the only one at the whole table who has done this. The rest of the women felt that they were so exhausted by just living with the process, they didn't have the time or energy to deal with showing anyone else what they were seeing. They felt it was enough that they had demonstrated results to their own relatives, and their children's individual teachers and therapists. The vast majority had stopped going to see their pediatrician and neurologist at all, because there's only so many times you can be called delusional to your face. I sent my videos to my pediatrician. By her own admission, she did not watch them. Desiree Jennings is not the only one this has ever happened to, she's just one of the few who's willing to become a huge target by putting her evidence out there.

My life experiences indicate to me that her experience is a credible one. Yours indicates to you that it is not. But you must admit that you do not have experiences to indicate that hers is false--you don't know anyone with dystonia who has been unable to improve with these treatments. You simply lack any corroborating experiences. Which is fine. But if you find yourself inching over from healthy skepticism into vilification and accusation, then you will only help make it more unlikely that others will come forward with their stories.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments.

Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears? Just another example of what one does before knowing anything. To have a fact, supporting and existing knowledge must also exist to explain the relationship. You don't have anything necessary to have a fact. What is necessary to form a hypothesis? You don't have that. Your logic is classic junk science.

Even your hypothesis is only wild speculation. A hypothesis only from observation (without any control subject or underlying concepts) is classic junk science.

What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?

What is traced to some forms of heart disease? Chlamydia. Yes, exposures to a sexual disease ten and twenty years ago may cause diseases today. Need we also mention Mad Cow disease? Another disease due to exposure years previously. But somehow you know autism is traceable to something immediate; only using observation. By ignoring other possiblities. A classic science mistake. "I would not have seen it if I had not known it was there." Clodfobble is doing just that. A conclusion based only in a few observations and wild speculatioin.

Clodfobble will not read this. I have a bad habit of demanding conclusions based in logic - not in junk science reasoning. Some will refuse to read to remain in denial - not learn from their mistakes. Foolishly pretend that observation is sufficient to 'know'. Any hypothesis or conclusion based only in observation is classic junk science. Any facts sufficient to have a hypothesis were condemned even in the Lancet. Avoiding that reality is further evidence of junk science reasoning. A relationship between medication and autism is classic junk science. As Clodfobble admits, the conclusion comes only from observation - which is the symptom of junk science.