Regarding Dan Olmsted’s reference to Schrödinger’s cat, the scientific method, and the Special Master rulings.

The “Copenhagen interpretation” in physics is that a subatomic particle exists in all states until the instant it is measured. At that instant, the location of the particle (at point A or point B for example) is controlled entirely by the act of observation.

Schrödinger disagreed. So he devised a thought experiment by going from a subatomic particle level all the way up to a biological level, a cat, to challenge this model.

In this thought experiment, a cat’s immediate fate depends solely on the decay of a subatomic particle. The decay of the subatomic particle depends solely on the observation of the cat’s fate. Notice that the first sentence says the observed outcome is dependent on the state of the particle—while the second sentence says just the opposite. Schrödinger’s point was to show that this contradiction is absurd and nonsensical.

Now then as to the “why”--why would any physicist want to use this model of the subatomic particle—for a particle to exist in both states and then to settle into a state caused entirely by the measurement itself? That is because it is a scientific guess, a hypothesis, waiting to be verified with experimental results. And in subatomic physics, subatomic particles are elusive when it comes to observation. But nevertheless a guess is a vital step in the scientific method.

This leads to Dan Olmstead’s concern about the Special Master Vowell’s ruling. It says

“The general consensus is that it [regression] does not represent an etiologically distinct subtype of ASD.”

Here is a legal observation that less than 50 percent of scientific reports at present show a correlation between regression and ASD. That is the best (and the worst) our legal system can offer in civil court. But it fails to prove non-existence of such a correlation using the scientific method. And it does nothing to establish the state of the science of vaccine safety.

That is why it is essential to note here that consensus, in this legal usage of the word in the ruling, is considered a legal weight of evidence. It must NOT to be confused with the scientific method. Scientists, from Galileo--to Schrödinger--to those of today, have said that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Galileo’s opinion on our solar system did meet consensus in the year 1615. Yet today he is considered one of the fathers of the scientific method.

This leads to Schrödinger’s cat.

The species that can understand subatomic particle physics, use scientific guesses, create thought experiments like Schrödinger’s cat, and apply scientific methods to determine experimentally the validity of the guesses—this species can understand that taking a chance with children by using vaccines that are not fully tested for short term and long term safety is not a logical approach to safety.

Similar to the failed logic in Schrödinger’s cat, it would absurd to say children can be protected because less than 50 percent of the published observations show a correlation between regression and ASD. This is not evidence of safety. It is evidence of safety failure.

If I stand in the middle of the bridge over the Savannah River with my cat, Pedro, he can be in 2 states at the same time-his head and body in South carolina and his tail in Georgia. The ass I leave to the Special masters. Thanks, Dan. You are a Master of
Metaphor.
maurine

What if regression began in the womb? What if the mother got a flu shot while pregnant? What if she got Rhogam? What if she, herself, was vaccine damaged? The fact that there is no universally exact gene for autism yet discovered might mean that none exists. It might mean that autism is the result of an assault on human development.

She might have been referring to the inability to attach solid statistical significance if there isn't a really solid definition of what 'regressed' means and if it can't be determined with some certainty which category to place a child into, (ie 'this child has regressed, this one hasn't'). Which I suppose is a valid argument for them to make but I wonder if a good faith attempt was really made at defining and categorizing these children precisely . If one were sufficiently cynical (I am) one could see it in this way – they are simply doing the same thing they've done with the expansion of the diagnosis. It does muddy things up rather (for them) nicely, if the definitions are vague.

Funny choice of words, though, that they've used – this existing and not existing at the same time. Reminds me of “we see no evidence of harm here.” Well of course, if one has their eyes closed tight as can be, it's kind of hard to see what's right in front of you. And you can believe in whatever possibility you like.

I saw this sentence, in a story about drug cartel deaths in Mexico, a week or two ago in a copy of the New York Times:

The big philosophical question in this gritty border town does not concern trees falling in the forest but bodies falling on the concrete: Does a shootout actually happen if the newspapers print nothing about it, the radio and television stations broadcast nothing, and the authorities never confirm that it occurred?

For some reason, it brought to mind Poul Thorsen.

I heard a tree fall in the forest. Just to be sure, I checked, and sure enough, there was nobody around to see it.

What happens if the cat meows to get out?

I am still laughing at Gatagorra's comment - woof woof tweet....too funny!

Dan-- x 2 back. There's big love in the sealed box (and the special masters can't have any).

"They could be anything... bladditty bla bla... type of worsening... woof woof tweet...either exist or do not exist...pizza!"

Gatagorra....you owe me a new keyboard.

Best....comment....Evar!!!!!

Gatogorra -- I love you, man! -- dan

Of course there's such a thing as regressive autism...scary to think these people call themselves experts.

We need to get the mito specialist on the stand to testify.

I wouldn't be surprised if these regressions are the result of mitochondrial dysfunction.. when the mito are functioning poorly what manifests as a regression is really loss of energy to the brain to sustain normal function. The brain demands a tremendous amount of energy as do other organs. Add on the fact that our kids are growing. External stress can also create energy demands. We know our kids have a very low stress threshhold.

I know I'm simplifying but I think poor mito function > Low celluar energy > poor brain function > stress = regression/shutdown.

Steve is having trouble with absurdity. If Schrodinger's thought experiment is so well known as he says, then he must know it was meant to illustrate something ridiculous about quantum mechanics. Reductio ad absurdum. To the world outside the sealed cat box, the cat is both alive and dead.

The special masters are in the world outside the sealed autism box. To them-- who cannot and will not look inside-- the children are both regressive and nonregressive and every state in between because something either did or did not happen inside the box according to the diabbolical experiment of vaccines. They could be anything... bladditty bla bla... type of worsening... woof woof tweet...either exist or do not exist...pizza!

Dan, you start off by saying that you don't understand a well-known thought experiment, but don't tell us what you don't understand.

You then go on to cite a paragraph from the Omnibus proceedings and also tell us you don't understand it, but not why.

Finally you say that we are up against a non-existent cat, that you don't understand nor believe in.

What on earth are you talking about?

If you hadn't told me it was Special Masters Denise Vowell being quoted .. and .. I had to guess who it was .. my guess would have been

THE MADHATTER OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND