Are you sure you think it is a good idea? It would involve a noticeable step down in living conditions.

Ah...sorry, I didn't catch that. Without the coal plants we wouldn't have much electricity...that's what I was thinking about.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is a novel use of null hypothesis. Usually it is the researcher who makes a hypothesis and then tries to disprove it. Failing to disprove the null hypothesis he concludes that it stands a little stronger than before and then proceeds to try and falsify it again. That he would require someone else to disprove it is not what would happen in the scientific community. Id wish the page would have told the purpose of the experiment. Was it to study how recombinomics work in nature or was it something else?I dont know that I have many comments to the article. It was reportive in nature and observations are observations.

I suggest this article , although I have not read more than the abstract due to the costs involved in reading the proper thing.

The idea behind the trash-the-lightbulb movement is to reduce carbon emissions. Coal plants are targeted. That doesn't mean there won't be electricity produced. They want wind or solar. Which isn't feasible at the current times -- unless you there isn't much electricity. Or nuclear is another option. The idea is coal plants will be done away with. Therefore, any comparison of mercury in the CFLs to that from coal plant generation is not-relevant.

What do you say is the null hypothesis in my statement that vaccines do not work?

Because, what you just said, I cannot understand.



I thought the page stated it clear enough, but being one familiar with the site, maybe it is found elsewhere. They are not an anti-vaccine site. In fact, they are promoting vaccines. As I understand it, they are going about it where if they can show how they can cause viruses to recombine and form new ones, then that gives reason to develop vaccines, and predict which ones are needed. If the bird and pig flu virsuses can be made to recombine, then there is need for a vaccine. Seems sinister to me. They justify it by saying we need to know it.


You realize that it could be said that your link could be just as easily dismissed with a "reportive in nature and observations are observations". Without seeing the text, it sounds very similar to mine, especially their conclusions.

I await an article that you can present the full text of so we can discuss it.

Hi Will,

I recommend the numerous good SDA books from Agatha Thrash relating to health:

Natural Health Care for Your Child, Nutrition for Vegetarians, Home Remedies, Natural Remedies, Rx:Charcoal, The Animal Connection, etc.

And there are resources by Dr. Michael Klaper on raising vegan children, though I've not read these.

But here's one article I just found: http://www.vegansa.com/veganism-vegan-children.php
____________

Id assume your null hypothesis is that vaccination does not work. Then you present data which is a bit ambiguous but never the less leans towards vaccination having an effect, even though perhaps not such a strong effect as you had thought. Now, using the normal definition of a null hypothesis, also supported by the link I give below the following happens. The null hypothesis that vaccinations do not work is rejected by the data which show that vaccination reduce disease and further that those who are vaccinated and still get the particular disease have much milder symptoms than what would have been expected. What I would expect is that you would have posted the results of your research together with the conclusion given. What happened was that you posted the results but claimed that the conclusions where the exact opposite of what they really where. Here is the same thing in other peoples words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Hope you can understand this better.I would think it only becomes sinister if they plan on releasing the new virus into the human population. If they either destroy the virus or use it to produce vaccine without spreading either vaccine or virus in anticipation of the day when the same virus occurs naturally, then I fail to see the big problem.
That a document is "reportive in nature" does not in my view dismiss it. It simply means that it is a different kind of document from one where an experiment has been made. Of course you could not do experiments with virus on humans so there is not really any choice as to whether such a paper is reportive or not. Besides, since the articles are basically the same as you say above and the conclusions presented here say that it seems that your position is in some want of support in our discussion.

I can read the entire article from my previous post through the local university library. Maybe you can try that aswell.

You are very confusing in your writing. I am not aware of saying what it appears you are saying I said.


And that's what I'd like to see. I await your presentation of an article we can view and discuss.

I agree that the earliest-made vaccinations were of great general benefit to world health. I am thinking specifically of the following:

Rabies (the very first vaccination ever made, by Louis Pasteur)
Polio (by Jonas Saulk)
Tetanus
Small-pox

And there may be one or two more with similar gold-medal track records. However, the modern vaccines are seemingly made for different purposes entirely, and they are much less humanitarian in nature. Consider:

Hepatitis B vaccine -- to prevent an STD, but given to newborns as if they will be sexually active right away!
Flu shots -- must be administered every year to keep those cash registers ticking!
HPV vaccine (cervical cancer vaccine) -- there are at least two of these, administered to girls 9 - 26 years of age. No side effects, of course....hah! (See below.)


Add to these vaccines for measles, mumps, chicken pox, diphtheria, typhoid, swine flu (H1N1), etc. (The list is nearly endless, and each one means more mercury injected into the body.)

As a child, I experienced the actual diseases of chicken pox, German measles, etc. and thus received my "vaccine" the natural way--the God-given immune system. I survived, with no damage done. I have experienced many illnesses, and survived them. (And because I have antibodies to so many things, and have traveled widely, the Red Cross will not accept blood donations from me.)

All of which points to one question: Are these modern vaccines really necessary and beneficial?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm of the position that the purpose has not changed. It's just becoming more clear to ascertain it.

You list those diseases of the past with "gold-medal track records". I agree, it is commonly accepted, generally recognized as vaccines having been beneficial in curing them. All I'm asking for is scientific evidence using the scientific method. It was commonly accepted that the universe revolved around the earth. Commonly held beliefs do not make a thing true. Nor do coincidental correlations, nor confounded ones.

Besides me not having seen anyone having presented such scientific experiments, you may want to search for the phrase, "Louis Pasteur" "Antoine Bechamp", and see if perhaps the past purpose of vaccines remain the same as the current purpose.