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

This video is not about autism but about vaccine studies. It is about real science vs fake science. The purpose of real science is to find truth. The purpose of fake science is to peddle a product. When there is a product to peddle a red alert should go off in your head. A vaccine qualifies as a product to peddle.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, I'll watch this when I have sober time, but I want you to know I appreciate the pure guts of being who you are, which is not what afflicts you but helped make you, and all your posts here are blessed by that transcendent grace.

--Brant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 11:06 AM, jts said:

This video is not about autism but about vaccine studies. It is about real science vs fake science.

Interesting point about real versus faked science.  In re the guy's claims in his published work, I checked in with David Gorski, and put a skeptic hat on ...

Quote

[...]

Even though the current vaccine schedule is safe and effective as well as evidence-based and the claim that we give too many vaccines too soon is an antivaccine myth, that doesn’t stop Miller from claiming otherwise in an article just published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons(JPANDS) entitled Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe. Now, the first thing I think whenever I see an article published in JPANDS is that it must be so horrible that no reputable journal would touch it with a ten foot cattle prod. After all, JPANDS is the house organ of a group, the Association of American Physicians and Scientists (AAPS), best known for its extreme right wing politics, its members’ belief that they are brave maverick doctors who don’t follow the “herd,” and its utter disdain for any evidence that conflicts with its ideology.

As hard as it is for me to believe, I first discovered the AAPS over ten years ago and was astonished at its embrace of antivaccine views, HIV/AIDS denialism, and other forms of pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories. Examples abound. Basically, the AAPS is known for being against vaccine mandates, against Medicare (calling it “unconstitutional”), and against any form of regulation of health care by government. It’s called public health programs “tyranny.” The AAPS has also published bad papers claiming to find that abortion causes breast cancer, has promoted the vile idea that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for “vaccine injury,” supported HIV/AIDS denialism, and (of course!) done what all crank medical organizations like to do, attack evidence- and science-based medicine as placing unacceptable limits on physician autonomy. Perhaps my favorite example of AAPS crankery is when it published a blog post (now removed, no doubt in embarrassment) claiming that then-candidate Barack Obama was possibly “deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis.” The AAPS doesn’t even limit itself to medicine in that it’s also published papers attacking anthropogenic global warming, as though physicians had the necessary expertise to judge the science in that field. Truly, the crank magnetism and arrogance of the AAPS know no bounds. If you don’t believe me, consider this. JPANDS has published articles by the father-son team of antivaccine “scientists,” Mark and David Geier.

We’ve also met Neil Z. Miller before. Well do I remember an article by him and co-author Gary S. Goldman published five years ago that resurfaces from time to time. Basically, it was an “analysis” purporting to show that infant mortality correlates with the cumulative number of doses of vaccine in the childhood vaccination schedule. Let’s just say Miller and Goldstein’s rationale, methods, and analysis were rather suspect. No, wait. Strike that. Let’s just say it was a giant, drippy, stinky turd of an article—and amateurish to bood—whose conclusions were not at all supported by the data or analysis. He and Goldman also teamed up for an equally inept attempt to show that more vaccination correlates with more hospitalizations and deaths. They failed.

[...]

... from the blurb posted at the Youtube page Jerry posted:

Passionate believers in whole food plant based diets, no chemicals, minimal pharmaceutical drugs, no GMO's. Fighting to stop climate change and extinction.

Edited by william.scherk
"Passionate believers" ...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 11:22 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Jerry, I'll watch this when I have sober time, but I want you to know I appreciate the pure guts of being who you are, which is not what afflicts you but helped make you, and all your posts here are blessed by that transcendent grace.

--Brant 

And Jerry is correct about vaccines being poison and worse.

That’s why they bought off your politicians and got themselves total legal immunity years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some vaccines are desirable. In Vietnam I saw a baby in the death throes of tetanus. Polio . . .

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Some vaccines are desirable. In Vietnam I saw a baby in the death throes of tetanus. Polio . . .

--Brant

Of course some are desirable. And some may be clean. I can’t speak for Jerry, but to clarify my own meaning: they put harmful things into vaccines, because those will harm, in order to harm. I am not saying they want profit and don’t mind the harm, I am saying they want to harm.

  • Sad 1

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...