Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

[jts]

21 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Present his evidence.

J

I did. See the Blaylock video I posted above.

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, jts said:

I did. See the Blaylock video I posted above.

 

I saw the video. Do remember that I commented on it?

My comment was that Blaylock doesn't present "evidence," but rather theorizing without presenting evidence. You responded that you've read his books and have seen his lectures, and asked if I've done the same. I replied, "Present his evidence." And now your suggestion is for me to watch the video that I already watched and which does not contain evidence but only theorizing?

Can you not tell the difference between someone's presenting evidence and their theorizing without presenting evidence?

What I'm asking you to do is to glean what you think is his strongest argument, and the actual evidence to support it -- the scientific testing.

Understand?

What I'm not asking is for you to tell me to read all of his books and watch all of his lectures because you think that what I'm asking for is in there somewhere when it's actually not.

J

 

[jts]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

What I'm not asking is for you to tell me to read all of his books and watch all of his lectures because you think that what I'm asking for is in there somewhere when it's actually not.

J

How do you want me to present his evidence? Do you want me to transcribe him? What do you mean by evidence? Do you mean consensus? Do you mean quoting authorities? What would you accept as evidence? If a study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, is that evidence? If the evidence is from a website or a person you don't like, does that invalidate it?

 

[Jonathan]

1 minute ago, jts said:

How do you want me to present his evidence? Do you want me to transcribe him? What do you mean by evidence? Do you mean consensus? Do you mean quoting authorities? What would you accept as evidence? If a study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, is that evidence? If the evidence is from a website or a person you don't like, does that invalidate it?

 

Do you not understand the word "evidence"?

J

[Jonathan]

If someone were to give the theory that, say, a machine may have stopped functioning properly because a metal gear shaft was in contact with a plastic material which he believed would become gelatinous after a certain amount of exposure to friction from the shaft, and that the resulting gel then fell onto other gears thus gumming them up, what would qualify as evidence to support the theory?

Would the statement of the theory be enough for you? Or would you require something more than the theory? If so, what?

J

[Brant Gaede]

deleted   

[jts]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Do you not understand the word "evidence"?

J

I do not understand the word 'evidence'.

Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote a book titled 'Exccitotoxins: The Taste that Kills'. This book bashes MSG and other excitotoxins. Prior to writing this book he was warned by another doctor that if he wrote the book the wrath of the MSG industry would be upon him and his life would be hell. Blaylock decided to write the book anyway because people needed to know the truth. To protect himself against the MSG industry he documented everything with air tight evidence (whatever that word means). Surprisingly not a peep from the MSG industry. He said he had private conversations with some of their 'top guns' and he said if it came to him vs the MSG industry, they would lose and they know it and that is why they are silent.

But I hear that the book contains no evidence.

Perhaps someone can explain why the book contains no evidence.

What is evidence?

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, jts said:

I do not understand the word 'evidence'.

Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote a book titled 'Exccitotoxins: The Taste that Kills'. This book bashes MSG and other excitotoxins. Prior to writing this book he was warned by another doctor that if he wrote the book the wrath of the MSG industry would be upon him and his life would be hell. Blaylock decided to write the book anyway because people needed to know the truth. To protect himself against the MSG industry he documented everything with air tight evidence (whatever that word means). Surprisingly not a peep from the MSG industry. He said he had private conversations with some of their 'top guns' and he said if it came to him vs the MSG industry, they would lose and they know it and that is why they are silent.

But I hear that the book contains no evidence.

Perhaps someone can explain why the book contains no evidence.

What is evidence?

 

Well, stories are evidence--anecdotal evidence. They can suggest further inquiry.

Statistics both gathered from what had happened  and created happenings as from studies.

Additional created happenings as from experiments.

Etc.

Evidence is a formalization and structuring and analyses of data.

--Brant

just off the top of my head; I'd not thought too much on this this way before--Correct Me If You Can (is there a movie out of this?)

evidence is data

[Brant Gaede]

I used to subscribe to the Blalock Medical Report but I let my subscription expire two or three years ago.

I used to be a US Army Special Forces Aidman. I had the broadest possible but shallow medical education. I could pull a tooth, treat a dog, cure your disease and amputate your leg in the field. I learned modern CPR in 1965, though modified significantly since. Now after being away from this guy I'd have to say he knows too much about too much. I knew/know a little about a lot. This means when the medical shit hits the fan talk to me, not Blaylock. I'd tell you I don't know.

But I still can amputate your arm or leg, do a wound debridement or a veinous cutdown, but you'd need to bring an anesthesiologist.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

9 hours ago, jts said:

I do not understand the word 'evidence'.

Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote a book titled 'Exccitotoxins: The Taste that Kills'. This book bashes MSG and other excitotoxins. Prior to writing this book he was warned by another doctor that if he wrote the book the wrath of the MSG industry would be upon him and his life would be hell. Blaylock decided to write the book anyway because people needed to know the truth. To protect himself against the MSG industry he documented everything with air tight evidence (whatever that word means). Surprisingly not a peep from the MSG industry. He said he had private conversations with some of their 'top guns' and he said if it came to him vs the MSG industry, they would lose and they know it and that is why they are silent.

The above is not evidence. The above is hearsay, gossip, malignmemt, etc.

9 hours ago, jts said:

Perhaps someone can explain why the book contains no evidence.

Who has said that the book contains no evidence? Are you suggesting that that is my position? Ive taken no such position. I've merely asked you to cut to the chase and identify the evidence, to glean it from his works, to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the video that you linked to, he offers a hypothesis. What I'm asking you to identify is any testing that he has performed of that hypothesis. I'm asking what scientific steps he has taken beyond theorizing, beyond supposition, and beyond the same type of thing that you were just doing above when asked to supply evidence.

10 hours ago, jts said:

What is evidence?

That is a question that you should have asked and answered long ago, long before you began believing and preaching.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/27/2018 at 12:16 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Since that is true, you don't get to say science and ethics are separate and have it mean anything real.

Science is now communicated to the public--and often implemented--through propaganda outlets. They decide for others what is true and not true. Falsification, trial and error, etc., are window dressing if they clash with propaganda priorities.

Tell me where science exists differently. You can't.

 As you yourself just said, the days of otherwise have passed.

Michael

The conditions under which science may be practiced are certainly affect by government involvement, but the science itself is about something else.  Physicists think of fields, manifolds, particles, symmetries, topologies, gauge effects,  etc when they do physics. They are not thinking of the next grant.  That is someone else's job.  The contents of physics is mostly math. It is a pure context unpolluted by ethical and political matters. 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/27/2018 at 10:35 AM, jts said:

According to Dr. Russell Blaylock and the evidence he presents, vaccines do roughly the same to the brain.

 

Bullshit. If that were true the majority of Americans would be mentally crippled.  

[Max]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Bullshit. If that were true the majority of Americans would be mentally crippled.  

You mean they aren't? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The contents of physics is mostly math. It is a pure context unpolluted by ethical and political matters. 

Bob,

Where does that exist? 

 

If you ever find where, let me know. Besides, I thought you didn't believe in fiction.

 

Hell, we can go in circles and circles about this, but the one place where you tend to be blind is how the propagandists always use your kind of argument as a smokescreen to cover their abuses of power. (They consider themselves above other humans because they are "scientific" and all...)

Whenever we are discussing the problems of those abuses of power, I often see you pop up with one of these kinds of arguments and it plays right into their propaganda procedures.

The only cure for propaganda and abuse of power is freedom. And that means the freedom of people you would consider cranks and kooks to present their stuff.

Divorcing science from the scientists is not a good path. It sets up the dictatorship by technocrat. Scientists may be good at scientific methods, but they can't stop being human. If it ever happens that they manage to pull of some kind of separation, I will be 100% on board with you. Until that happens, I refuse to divorce science from ethics, that is, from human beings and their values.

The scientific method is not separate from, but equal to ethics in human life. It is separate in part in a few procedures, but science in general is fully integrated with humans and subordinate to them. Claims of purity, pollution and yada yada yada reminds me of cult calls for moral hygiene--that is right before gobs of people are arrested and/or "cleansed" from the human race.

I'll take my chances with the kooks any day. I want to live as I will, not be a friggin' lab rat of a so-called superior human just because he says "science" a lot and points to a Shangri-La of scientific purity that doesn't exist in humans on earth and has never existed.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, Max said:

You mean they aren't? 

Max,

Cute...

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Max said:

You mean they aren't? 

The majority of Americans are sane and have working brains.  They may not be as wise as they should be but they are connected to the real world.  No clinical study done to date supports the hypothesis that immunizations cause autism.  If that were true the 90 percent of Americans would be autistic because 90 percent of American have been immunized against measles, whooping cough, dyptheria and polio. I will not accept this hypothesis until a clinical double blind study supports it.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

Have a look here  https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states    The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic.  However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism.  Clear proof that the hypothesis  immunization causes autism is poppycock.  

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Have a look here  https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states    The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic.  However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism.  Clear proof that the hypothesis  immunization causes autism is poppycock.  

Your actual standards of evidence and proof are quite weak So is your reasoning. You have a dogma about vaccinations equivalent to standing on a street corner shouting out about Jesus. 

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The majority of Americans are sane and have working brains.  They may not be as wise as they should be but they are connected to the real world.  No clinical study done to date supports the hypothesis that immunizations cause autism.  If that were true the 90 percent of Americans would be autistic because 90 percent of American have been immunized against measles, whooping cough, dyptheria and polio. I will not accept this hypothesis until a clinical double blind study supports it.

 

Hypotheses are only accepted as hypotheses. This you have here done. Proof creates theory. This is evidence that your applied idea of the scientific method is dogmatic.

--Brant 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

55 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is evidence that your applied idea of the scientific method is dogmatic.

Brant,

Not to mention the total lack of considering that some humans may react differently to vaccines than others depending on differences in metabolism and other variables.

As a parallel example that is widely known and not disputed (to my knowledge), some people are allergic to peanuts. There are so many cases of people who have died from eating peanuts or peanut butter that this has become a trope for stories in popular culture.

Using Bob's reasoning, since the vast majority of Americans eat peanuts without any problem at all, this practically invalidates the possibility that peanuts could cause an allergic reaction in some people serious enough to kill them. He refuses to believe that until he has double-blind studies proving it. Meanwhile those poor allergic peanut-eating people are dropping like flies... 

 

Science is supposed to be about observation at root, not just theory and procedure. But when we get to autism and big-money operations like vaccines, cognitive bias seem to rule just as much as falsification among the strictly-science oriented.

They get quite religious about it.

Michael

[jts]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Have a look here  https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states    The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic.  However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism.  Clear proof that the hypothesis  immunization causes autism is poppycock.  

Causes are not necessarily that simple. What if cause c1 and cause c2 must both exist to produce effect e? Then the statistics might show that only 2% of the cases of c1 have e and you would conclude that their is no causal relationship between c1 and e. Here is a question to look into. What is the autism rate in populations that reject vaccines?

ALS is an example of multiple causes, or maybe we should say cause factors. ALS means simply motor neurons die. The question is why do the motor neurons die? ALS (death of motor neurons) can be produced in lab animals at will. One way is a combination of low motor neuron energy and excess concentration of glutamic acid near the motor neuron. Either one alone will not do it but both together will.

It gets more complicated than that because we can ask what causes low motor neuron energy and what causes excess concentration of glutamic acid, and in both we have multiple cause factors

Another example is breaking a bone. Let us imagine most of the population slips and falls on ice but only 1 in 90 breaks a bone. If you are consistent in your reasoning you would conclude that the hypothesis that slipping and falling on ice causes broken bones is poppycock. Falling on ice is only 1 cause factor. Another cause factor might be weak bones.

Maybe autism has multiple cause factors, like most things have. 

 

[Brant Gaede]

We can only say most things have multiple causes only if we are speaking of causes antecedent to causes that caused X. Thus we can go back to the beginning of the universe. Otherwise we don't have enough data.

--Brant

[Max]

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Have a look here  https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states    The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic.  However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism.  Clear proof that the hypothesis  immunization causes autism is poppycock.  

But even if you suppose that in only one of 1000 cases vaccination would cause autism, this would show up in the statistics if your sample is big enough. The question is not how many vaccinated children become autistic, but: is there a difference in the percentage of children diagnosed with autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children? If there is no difference, then there is no evidence for the hypothesis that vaccination causes autism, that is elementary statistics. Now "data" is not the plural of "anecdote", you need a large sample to get reliable results. Such studies have been done, and the conclusion of all of them was that there is no evidence that vaccination causes autism. 

For example, there has been a large Danish study wherein more than half a million children were followed for 8 years ( https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134 ). There was found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In fact among the vaccinated children there was less autism diagnosed (but the difference was not significant). Further "There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder." 

This doesn't prove that vaccination cannot cause autism, but it does prove that if that were the case, it would be exceedingly rare and certainly no cause for concern.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Max said:

This doesn't prove that vaccination cannot cause autism, but it does prove that if that were the case, it would be exceedingly rare and certainly no cause for concern.

Max,

Here is the problem. You have parents who take their kids to be vaccinated. When they arrive the kids are vibrant. After the vaccination, the kids are zombies.

This is not ONE story or a fabrication of some conspiracy theorists. This is the story or TENS OF THOUSANDS of people. They exist.

Then people like you come along and dismiss it all citing some scientific paper or other. And even affect some kind or posture of superiority. Thus insinuating they all lived a coincidence and were too stupid to know it.

Don't you see where there would be a credibility issue with the scientific side, and especially when the scientific side keeps talking about "settled science" with vehemence even though they don't use that term?

Tens of thousands of cases is a lot to blank out.

That is religion, not science.

A peer reviewed magic wand will not make all those people go away.

Michael

[jts]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Have a look here  https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states    The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic.  However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism.  Clear proof that the hypothesis  immunization causes autism is poppycock.  

Smoking does not cause lung cancer. If it did, everybody who smokes would get lung cancer. Clear proof that smoking does not cause lung cancer.