jts

Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Recommended Posts

Is this a statistical possibility if it's not causation? A math problem.

Does the source (Brighteon) invalidate the video?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video invalidates the video--and I've yet to watch it--or the descriptive title does. The title is medical/scientific garbage. If the content matches the title it's garbage too.

Look, videos have their ancillary place. Don't use then as battering rams.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to watch/listen to the video, you can read a transcript of it here.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-12-23-triplets-all-become-autistic-within-hours-of-vaccination-see-shocking-video.html

 

If you want more medical/scientific garbage about vaccines. go here.

http://vaccines.news/

 

Also every vaccine is supposed to have an insert. Find out the name of the vaccine and google the insert and read it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is this a statistical possibility if it's not causation? A math problem.

Does the source (Brighteon) invalidate the video?

 

Happenstance.  All 4 of my children were vaccinated. None of them are autistic.  All five of my grandchildren were vaccinated.  None of them autistic.  We we have is happenstance, not cause.  This kind of "reasoning"  leads top superstition and black cat stories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not let a baby of mine be clobbered all at once with multiple vaccines. And I'd pick and choose which ones and when.

I once saw a baby the day before it died of tetanus in Vietnam. So I'm not against vaccines per se to say the least.

--Brant

Share this post


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

Happenstance.  All 4 of my children were vaccinated. None of them are autistic.  All five of my grandchildren were vaccinated.  None of them autistic.  We we have is happenstance, not cause.  This kind of "reasoning"  leads top superstition and black cat stories. 

Some years ago I knew an elderly woman who slipped on ice and broke a bone and had to go to the hospital. That was happenstance. The slipping on ice had nothing to do with the breaking of the bone. I slipped on ice, fell down, and didn't break anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video is offline right now.

I imagine it was targeted by hackers.

This kind of stuff always happens whenever vaccines and autism are discussed and start getting traction. The people who claim there is no connection between the two don't want to debunk the claim. They want to shut down ALL discussion about it and erase the very idea from the heads of all people everywhere.

It makes you wonder... Where have I seen that kind of behavior before?

Simply put, there is no way to have a public discussion about whether vaccines cause autism in some manner or other in a civil tone or, at least, without becoming a target for sneak vandals and thugs. Just by asking questions, Big Brother bootlickers always show up to threaten to publicly taint you as a loon. And if you don't shut up and shut up quick, destructive "coincidences" tend to happen.

That is despicable and authoritarian. And that is a good indication some crap is going on backstage with our Fearless Elitist Leaders. (Think ill-gotten money and power for starters...)

Hopefully, Brighteon will fix this video before too long.

Right or wrong, people have a right to look and come to their own conclusions.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video is from Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Controversy, the 2016 movie, available for viewing by download or streaming or DVD purchase via Amazon Prime. The movie has a website and a suite of promotional activities for folks who want to join 'the movement.' It also has an Internet Movie Database entry, and -- wouldn't you know it -- a robust 'industry' of critics (I recommend the work done by Science-Based Medicine, especially David Gorski).

The Brighteon site has a Vaxxed account, which presently has 241 videos available.

The movie's "star" is Andrew Wakefield, who had his license to practice medicine revoked in the UK.  The Vaxxed website answers the question, "Who is Andrew Wakefield?" 

Quote

If you’ve heard Dr. Wakefield’s name—and you probably have—you’ve heard two tales. You’ve heard that Dr. Wakefield is a charlatan, an unethical researcher, and a huckster who was “erased” from the British medical registry and whose 1998 article on autism and gastrointestinal disease was “retracted” by a leading medical journal. You’ve also heard a very different story, that Dr. Wakefield is a brilliant and courageous scientist, a compassionate physician beloved by his patients, and a champion for families with autism and vaccine injury. What’s the truth?

What is the truth?  You don't have to pick a side before doing research on contested claims and warrants.

["charlatan" and "huckster" are generic words of disapprobation which alone carry not much more than a negative charge. However, putting erased and retracted in quotes can imply that these are also generic words of disapprobation. I'd say "not quite." It is true that Wakefield lost his ability to practice medicine in the UK -- his name was ''struck off" the list of doctors.  It is true that his 1998 article was retracted -- not "retracted," but actually retracted.  Inquiring minds will want to know why.]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Simply put, there is no way to have a public discussion about whether vaccines cause autism in some manner or other in a civil tone or, at least, without becoming a target for sneak vandals and thugs.

Skeptical criticism of Wakefield and an 'antivax movement is abundant. I don't know what you mean by vandals. #Sh*tforBrainsKorben #C**ts

Quote

Just by asking questions, Big Brother bootlickers always show up to threaten to publicly taint you as a loon.

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

Edited by william.scherk
#C**ts
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

You don't have to pick a side before doing research on contested claims and warrants.

William,

In today's culture?

The hell you don't.

Try it sometime.

Look at your own reaction just now. And this is after a lot of snark softening.

The hostility of those who ask questions these days is not gratuitous. There's a lot of history there. And it ain't been pretty for your side over time.

Your side deserves to be called Big Brother bootlickers. They earned it through long-standing repeated actions.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is this a statistical possibility if it's not causation?

Notice, I did not say it is causation. I asked a question. Let us assume that it is happenstance and not causation. Then all 3 of them would have gone down within hours of the time of the vaccination even if they did not get the vaccination. Can you figure out the mathematical probability of all 3 going down in this narrow time frame without the vaccine?

 

Share this post


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

If you don't want to watch/listen to the video, you can read a transcript of it here.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-12-23-triplets-all-become-autistic-within-hours-of-vaccination-see-shocking-video.html

It's a truncated transcript. In their own words ... 

Quote

On June 25th, 2007, we brought them in for the [vaccine] shot… we went in at 10 am. All three. My daughter still has the mark on her leg from the shot… we did the boys as well. By noon, Claire shut completely off. It was as if she was blind, and deaf, and complete failure to thrive, from super super happy, smiley girl to… she had full blown eye contact, and she shut right down. All she did was stare at the ceiling.

At 2:00 we watched Richie shut off. All his mama, dadda, and the furniture walking and everything just shut of. All the giggles, all the smiles, again failure to thrive. They lost all their reflexes… they stopped blinking, yawning, coughing, sneezing, they lost their startle reflex… that was 2:00.

The worst was when we saw the final one shut down. We lost Robbie, he looked like he was hit by a bus. He had a stunned look on his face… he acted deaf, he lost his happiness. They were no longer engaged in anything or anyone. They lost their smiles. They never held hands again, never looked at each other again. (Crying)

Vaccine injury is real. We were told is was genetic, then we were told there was no way three children were shut off on the same day… it was statistically impossible. We were told we could not sue anyone. No vaccine manufacturers could be sued. We found out [later] there was a vaccine injury court. They then told us we were too late, [we] only had three years to apply.

There will be supporting testimony if this is true. Which 'the shot'?  At which point in infant life was this shot given, by whom, where? Vaccination records are kept, the family will have access to this.  Which was the 'trigger' shot of the vaccine schedule? -- did the triplets complete the vaccines schedule? Was it done at a doctor's office or clinic?

Did the parents seek medical opinion on the triplets' sudden change in behaviour/development?  The parents will have access to those medical files if so.

What is the diagnosis, and when was it given -- what year? By whom? Knowing that, you can get a better picture of the family's position.  It is a possibility that each triplet reacted to "the shot" in the similar way. It is a possibility that otherwise genetically-identical children each was later given a diagnosis of autism.  

One question I would seek an answer to was if the family recorded contemporaneous video of the children, near the time of their 'trigger' event.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Your side deserves to be called Big Brother bootlickers.

Given the opportunity, the details sort themselve out.  Discussion is possible without slanging or defamation. 

1 hour ago, jts said:
16 hours ago, jts said:

Is this a statistical possibility if it's not causation?

Notice, I did not say it is causation. I asked a question.

You can always come up with your own answer.  In so doing, when you do a probability analysis, you should declare your priors, in a kind of Bayesian enterprise. 

I take the question in two parts, with two possible dependencies.  The dependencies are 'triplets with autism'  and 'triplets with documentation of 'immediate onset' autism after 'the shot' as claimed.

For the first question, "Are autism rates in triplets, twins, quadruplets, etc measurable with precision?"

The second: "Given the 'rate' of autism diagnoses shared within twins/triplets/etc 'sets' ... as measured, is it a statistical abnormality to have three geneticially-similar infants show signs of autism?"

I'll come back to answer the questions posed, which answers necessitate a view of the entire video.

 

Edited by william.scherk
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Bob,

I guess the science is settled, huh?

Just like it is on manmade climate change, huh?

:) 

Michael

I gave a counterexample to causality. What does that leave?  happenstance.  A lot of things happen and the causes are not known.

 

Share this post


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

Some years ago I knew an elderly woman who slipped on ice and broke a bone and had to go to the hospital. That was happenstance. The slipping on ice had nothing to do with the breaking of the bone. I slipped on ice, fell down, and didn't break anything.

 

quite so.  Sometimes falling produces breakage, sometimes it doesn't.  One cannot make a general statement the falling will break bones.  It all depends on the type of fall and on what fallen.  To say A causes B means  whenever A happens then B follows.  That is cause. There is a firm connection between A and B.   if A happens and B does not,  then A is not a sufficient reason for B to happen.  

 

Share this post


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

I gave a counterexample to causality.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a very common fallacy.

Max,

To appeal to Rand, so is blanking out observed reality. How's that for a fallacy? It's quite common.

:) 

At issue is not a preordained conclusion. At issue is the right to question and investigate without harassment from people with vast financial stakes involved (multiple tens of billions of dollars--it's hard to find exact numbers for the vaccine market, but that description fits all stats I have seen).

Michael

Share this post


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

quite so.  Sometimes falling produces breakage, sometimes it doesn't.  One cannot make a general statement the falling will break bones.  It all depends on the type of fall and on what fallen.  To say A causes B means  whenever A happens then B follows.  That is cause. There is a firm connection between A and B.   if A happens and B does not,  then A is not a sufficient reason for B to happen.  

 

You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context.

It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough information provided here to come anywhere near to making a conclusion.

It sounds as if the family and perhaps some of their supporters are taking the position of equating symptoms of, or similar to, autism with autism itself -- lots of unknowns and loose definitions being applied, it seems.

If their testimony of events is true -- which I have no reason to doubt -- then it seems pretty clear that the children did react to the shots, and that the shots caused the changes in their behavior.

It also sounds as if the specific batch of shots was likely contaminated.

Regardless of what they suspect, and what conclusions they've personally come to, and what position they take on vaccinations in general, and any ties to or causes of autism, their case deserves the full attention of a just legal system.

Kudos to the parents for attempting to draw attention to what their family has gone through. If their only option is taking advantage of the promotional abilities of organizations who may cross the line into mistaken advocacy, well, then so be it. That advocacy is the lesser of evils. The legal system, the health care system, and pharmaceuticals should be actively fighting to help the family, learn what happened, not delivering the message, "Oh well, nothing can be done, ain't our fault, you signed papers, you missed the deadline for lawsuits that you didn't know about, etc...."

J

 

Share this post


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

It also sounds as if the specific batch of shots was likely contaminated.

Jonathan,

Now you have hit on the crux of the issue. That video clearly said the triplets received vaccines from a batch of shots that was contaminated and gave a source where this could be confirmed.

And still those parents were castigated and held up as kooks--for years. They still are.

Right here on this thread they have been cavalierly dismissed--with a little lip service for their suffering.

The Big Brother bootlickers don't even notice the contamination part. (You did, though. :) ) They're sooooo thirsty to virtue signal to other elitist idiots about how above conspiracy theories they are and way too quick to throw stones at "intellectually inferior" conspiracy theory scapegoats. 

That is the problem.

Kat goes to autism conferences all the time. The kind of episode and dismissive treatment by others as shown in that video is widespread. This video had the advantage of the contamination gotcha (to show just what assholes the Big Brother bootlickers are) whereas most don't. But all cases are real. Parents of autistic children aren't lying about what they saw and experienced. And they are getting really pissed about being treated this way.

Look at the numbers fer kerissakes. One in forty children are autistic nowadays. And this number is from establishment reports. You know what the Big Brother bootlickers say about it? They say there always was this percentage. It merely increased because people have a name for autism now and awareness is higher.

Pure bullshit.

How high does that percentage have to get before these idiots realize there is a serious problem at hand? When an epidemic like this starts, ALL options have to be studied. Not just the ones that don't inconvenience crony corporatists and vain idiots.

The propaganda is doing its work, though. Most people are afraid to ask questions in public, even when they are curious. And should you get a timid question out there somewhere, any number of Big Brother bootlickers will be happy to barge in no matter where you are and tell you (and the four winds) the science is settled about autism and vaccines. That there is no connection. That this has been definitely proven. And then they start insinuating bad things about your future reputation should you insist on your questions. In other words, shut up and sit down.

That isn't going over well with a massively growing number of parents with autistic kids.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Russell Blaylock explains how vaccines induce autism.

The usual response to Dr. Russell Blaylock is he is not mainstream, he is a kook, his ideas are not generally accepted, etc. Fallacies of reasoning. Dr. Russell Blaylock usually has an abundance of peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of everything he says.

 

 

Share this post


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

 It is not advisable to trust such people.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now