jts

Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, jts said:

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.

This, and many other phenomena, isn't about all or none. It's about some and its magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

It isn't rational to just dismiss "some paper" as the product of those awful scientists. The Danish study I referenced followed all children born in Denmark in the period  January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1998, a total of 537,303 children followed for a total of 2,129,864 person-years. Read the paper to see how careful this study was set up, how painstakingly and meticulously all kinds of possible factors were taken into account. If you think you can just dismiss the study, you should point out the errors therein. Follow also the references in that study to see the results of other studies that come to the same conclusion. 

As I said before, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a common fallacy. With many millions of people it is statistically unavoidable that there will be "remarkable" coincidences. How impressive these might seem, in themselves they don't prove anything. Therefore you need large and carefully designed scientific studies, not a collection of anecdotes. In such cases I trust only scientific data. Not that these are automatically correct (far from it!), but at least I have some possibility to check the accuracy and the soundness of the methods used.



 

 

Share this post


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

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.

 

That is correct. Smoking by itself does not cause lung cancer.  Smoking, perhaps,  enables other conditions to prevail, but these other conditions are not universal in the population.  That is a possibility.  But the anti-immunization crackpots do not say this.  They say flatly, baldly, and wrongly, immunization causes autism 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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. 

 

However, immunization does produce benefits.  How many people are paralyzed with polio this days.  Hardly any.  When I was a kid, Summer time used to be Polio Hell.  I was forbidden by my parents to go to public swimming pools and discourage from going to the movies.  And almost everyone knew someone, or had a relative that was crippled by the disease.  So a statistical analysis IS appropriate.  If the odds of harm  by NOT having the immunization,  exceed the odds of harm BY having the immunization one should  be immunized.  An interesting thing happened with regard to smallpox.  It turned out that more people were getting a smallpox related disease from the immunization  than  those is in  unimmunized population were getting smallpox.  So smallpox shots were eliminated.  The disease simply ceased to exist in advanced countries like the U.S.     But the anti-immunization crackpots do not have a valid statistical argument for their position.  They simply believe that immunization causes autism. They are wrong.  Almost all indication are that the various types of autism are genetically conditioned.  Studies show that it runs in families.  But this, right now, is a suspicion, not a proven fact. One thing we do know at this point, immunization as such does NOT cause autism.  The Anti-Vac  crew are crackpots. 

 

Share this post


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

It isn't rational to just dismiss "some paper" as the product of those awful scientists.

Max,

Who said I dismissed it?

And who said you are the arbitrator of what is rational and what isn't sight unseen?

Hmmmmm?...

:) 

I'm the one using multiple inputs to deal with an epidemic. You're the one isolated in the ivory tower.

The weird thing about people who do what you do is that when the problem lands at their door, when the lash lands on their skin, they become zealots for the other side. In my view, they continue with the same epistemological problem. (I've personally known several people like this and they all sounded much like you sound before they had their personal experience.)

It's the religious attitude, not the science, that's the problem. And feeding the addiction called vanity--the dark hole of the soul--of believing one is inherently superior to other humans because one is smart and they are stupid. (I know addiction from experience, also.)

But whatever. We all have the gods we worship...

Matters of faith and all...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...