Smashing the Vegetarian Vaccination Binary! #BecauseScienceIsStillAThing
-
Also collectivism still isn't proof of anything, a lot of people think Jesus saved them, doesn't prove that Jesus did ... it just proves that a lot of people believe they were saved by Jesus.
This reminds me of a favorite quote, I believe by Nietzsche, "All it takes is a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum to show that faith proves nothing."
-
I can't remember who said it but it boiled down to this "People draw a circle around themselves that includes all the good people that also happens to be their friends" ... which unfortunately @redwizard seems to have fallen into.
-
You just said that Galileo wasn't believed because of "common sense" ... yet you are saying the collectively because you have the same opinions and experiences that is somehow evidence?
I should know better than to give approximate recollections on topics for reference, and apologize for going off topic in an attempt to prove a point by analogy.
The church convicted Galileo of Heresy. "The Church had decided the idea that the Sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe." To be honest, I an not sure how much the general population accepted the Church's view as fact at the time, but I think it's safe to say that many did, as even today we have religious people who hold that the Earth is only 6000 years old (referenced in so many other topics in this forum that I don't believe I need to beat that horse to death here?)
Also collectivism still isn't proof of anything, a lot of people think Jesus saved them, doesn't prove that Jesus did ... it just proves that a lot of people believe they were saved by Jesus.
So you're saying if official "research" or documentation says I can't make an electric car run as cars can only run on gasoline, that despite the fact that I may own a Tesla Model S that I have driven on electric only and know 100 people who own a Tesla Model S and drive it on electric only, that we're somehow wrong for observing the electric car go?
Your collectivism point is true, but it does not apply here.
-
No, it is absolutely collectivism. You have a group of people who are seeing correlation and are calling it causation. It is a self-reinforcing collectivism. I get it though, if I had a child with autism I would do anything to help. But that does not make correlation equal causation.
What about the people who tried these methods and it failed for them? Do they come to conferences? Nope. This is the absolute opposite of science.
-
So you're saying if official "research" or documentation says I can't make an electric car run as cars can only run on gasoline, that despite the fact that I may own a Tesla Model S that I have driven on electric only and know 100 people who own a Tesla Model S and drive it on electric only, that we're somehow wrong for observing the electric car go?
The problem is that a car moving by electric power is something that is easily observable and easily provable.
Health is nowhere near that clear cut. Most people if they smoked, drank whiskey and ate only steak would die relatively young however lemmy from motorhead had bucked that trend ... however we do know that the overwhelming vast majority would have serious health problems from such a lifestyle.
However what you are doing is saying "lemmy is in perfect health and he drinks whiskey, smokes and eats steak" therefore their "research is wrong" and then meeting up with other people that happened to know the odd person that seems unaffected from similar life decisions.
Then you say to each other "smoking, drinking and eating red meat doesn't seem to be a health problem therefore all the research and statistics are wrong ... ain't we cool for being the special few who know this!"
-
When people make drastic changes in their household like removing products or stopping immunizations, they also make a lot of tiny little behavior and environmental changes as well.
Autism is a very unknown condition that reacts greatly to behavior and stimuli related changes.
Therefore, it is likely that those stimuli changes are what helped.
Causing a fuss over correlation is a bad thing. It's caused all kinds of wreckage in the food industry without producing any real results, other than costing companies large sums of money by frivolous lawsuits.
Not only that, it ignores real treatment methods, like changing how you communicate to the child, and creating behavior changes, understanding triggers and why your child behaves certain ways.
What's worse is that when you remove the stimuli changes you haven't noticed, the problems will come back.
We have done other things, such as speech and occupational therapy, since he was 3. But it was the diet changes in particular at 5 and the detox program just before that, which within a month of implementation, led to a significant improvement in his speech and OT therapy progress. I should let me wife add points in here as she was working with them closely during this time - I merely worked several jobs to bring in enough money to fund it.
Did something else happen that coincided at the time which was the real cause of his recovery that I missed? Sure, entirely possible! But I don't overlook the fact that I am among many others who have seen this same correlation. So this is what's true for me.
I'm on the autism spectrum, and there's this autistic girl that learned to communicate by keyboard. Everything she said clicked with me, and now I understand what's going on a lot more.
Flashing lights make me lose balance. Seeing too many faces gives me headaches. I can hear many conversations at once. A lot of the way people ignore stimuli, I have to learn to do manually or I get overwhelmed.
I'm glad things make more sense for you and that you're (hopefully if I'm inferring this right) dealing with your particular challenges better. As for the many people stimuli, my son has that too. Up until now we've either removed him from the environment, or directed his attention so he can focus on something to prevent the overwhelm (the latter a more recent tactic with limited success). I am hopeful that in the not too distant future he will understand what he is dealing with and can take effective measures for himself, as you do now.
-
However what you are doing is saying "lemmy is in perfect health and he drinks whiskey, smokes and eats steak" therefore their "research is wrong" and then meeting up with other people that happened to know the odd person that seems unaffected from similar life decisions.
This is where your counterpoint doesn't make sense to me.
It's not just my son. There are thousands of people who meet at the Autismone.org conventions that have done the same thing and overall had the same successes.
Then you say to each other "smoking, drinking and eating red meat doesn't seem to be a health problem therefore all the research and statistics are wrong ... ain't we cool for being the special few who know this!"
No, in fact I am angry and frustrated that special interests in the name of profits doctor (no pun intended) the statistics in such a way to make it appear that their assertions are right, which A) caused my wife and I to initially ignore, then not effectively help, our son, and B) then get into arguments like this which are unproductive.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm closer to the situation, but that personal stake in it tends to make me admittedly less objective. But, it also gives me some insight that I otherwise wouldn't have.
-
This is where your counterpoint doesn't make sense to me.
It's not just my son. There are thousands of people who meet at the Autismone.org conventions that have done the same thing and overall had the same successes.
I am sure there are thousands of people that smoked everyday of their lives and drank and never had any problems ... but millions did ... there is two factors of 10 difference. On the immunisation point with thermisol there was a sample of 1.25 million people which is two factors of ten greater than your sample.
No, in fact I am angry and frustrated that special interests in the name of profits doctor (no pun intended) the statistics in such a way to make it appear that their assertions are right, which A) caused my wife and I to initially ignore, then not effectively help, our son, and B) then get into arguments like this which are unproductive.
Except that isn't proof of anything, which is the whole point. I am sorry you are angry, but it doesn't prove anything and doesn't prove anyone was being dishonest.
However there is a lot of evidence to the contrary to what you said, which I and others on here have cited. From the evidence that is available your assertions doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
@Intercourse said:
I would just ask them: "Organic food eh? So you like overpaying for your food? Gotcha..."
First or second episode of the anti-King of the Hill show, The Good People or whatever the heck it was called, had the mom going to a store, which had apples, then organic apples, then free-range organic apples, and so on, each kind being a couple of bucks a pound more than the last.
-
I think their stuff is actually pretty safe.
There's still like 85 posts, but just on the off chance nobody else mentioned it, you are posting here.
-
Except that isn't proof of anything, which is the whole point. I am sorry you are angry, but it doesn't prove anything and doesn't prove anyone was being dishonest.
However there is a lot of evidence to the contrary to what you said, which I and others on here have cited. From the evidence that is available your assertions doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Which leads me back to http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/another-strike-against-vegetarians/4514/92
I can't blame anyone for not taking me seriously. I only ask that if you have the opportunity to observe for yourself, do so. It's how we find out evidence is falsified, documentation is wrong, etc. etc. Until then, you are right until proven otherwise.
-
Which leads you back to your own circular reasoning.
The whole point is that what you personally observe cannot be trusted. Unless it can be repeated reliably it is at best "what worked for us".
People aren't taking you seriously because you are not presenting them with anything that will make them take you seriously.
-
@Intercourse said:
Next thing we know, you will be saying that same thing about Jenny McCarthy and her crusade against autism.
As a parent of a mildly autistic child, I was having a fairly nice afternoon until I read this and was forced to think about Jenny McCarthy.
Stopping immunizations,
*headdesk*
mercury poisoning
more *headdesk*
How did we survive for thousands of years before pesticides, etc. were invented?
There were a lot fewer of us, for one thing.
@Intercourse said:
and a very effective preservative for vaccines
And isn't even used in a lot of common places any more.
Very very small changes in stimuli with autistic children lead to drastic changes in behavior.
When my son was two or so he started in with the classic symptoms of what we later realized were autism. The first thing we did, all unknowing, was insist he look at people when he was talking to them. Later, our doctor said that was probably the best thing we could have done.
And by handling his environment, he has improved. Laugh all you want - all I care about is I have my son back.
I would never laugh at you for that. But my son had all his vaccinations and he still "recovered," if that's how to put it. Probably the single best thing that could be done before it's too late, if there is such a time, is to make sure he actually interacts with people in a normal way. I know at least one other person with an autistic son who didn't realize for a few years that he wasn't making eye contact--she tended to rationalize it as being shy, which I did at first.
safely disseminated.
*headdesk* again. There's no frigging conspiracy, except for that one doctor who invented the vaccination link.
-
Yeah, speaking as someone on the autistic spectrum myself...I have not had a whit of thimerosal dealt to me in my life, to the best of my knowledge (my original pediatrician was a country-doctor type who was like 'mercury-containing preservatives in the shots I'm giving my patients? no thank you, I'm going to go with the alternative formulation, TYVM').
*headdesk* again. There's no frigging conspiracy, except for that one doctor who invented the vaccination link.
Thank you.
-
The whole point is that what you personally observe cannot be trusted. Unless it can be repeated reliably it is at best "what worked for us".
Then at least take it at that level - it's what's worked for us. Thanks.
-
@codinghorror's preferences aside, gathering up multiple replies like that is significantly more work than repeatedly replying to individual points, and of course, anyone wanting to only reply to some of what I replied to will just wind up breaking it back out again, so I don't really think it's an improvement over the other way. (This is just my opinion, Jeff, you can take it or leave it, although I assume you'll do the latter.)
But if you want people to do that you need to fix the editor so each additional quoted reply shows up at the bottom of the edit box. It might be necessary to force a scroll in there, because it always feels precarious--I always feel like if I don't manually position the cursor at the bottom I might get the quote in the middle of the reply. I'm not sure how to improve the UX but you need to find something to do it.
-
No because you are inadvertently promoting:
- Not having kids immunized based on iffy evidence (It was Jonas Salk's 100th birthday this week FFS).
- Having labels such as organic are somehow magically better for you despite no evidence and this might hurt
future high yield (GMO) crops that could save many millions from starvation and food shortages.
Both beliefs you hold will adversely affect many people in the future because you are putting your personal experience in front of rigorous research.
-
that one doctor who invented the vaccination link
Andrew Wakefield wasn't even trying to demonstrate danger in vaccines. What he was trying to discredit was the combined MMR vaccine, so the company that was paying him could sell their less effective separate vaccines.
If Wakefield had had his way, kids would be getting two more vaccinations than they do now
-
headdesk again. There's no frigging conspiracy, except for that one doctor who invented the vaccination link.
No one thought Enron was part of a conspiracy either. Took a while before people knew where to look.
I do recall one thing: never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Perhaps I am overlooking something. All I can do is continue to observe and evaluate.
-
We have done other things, such as speech and occupational therapy, since he was 3. But it was the diet changes in particular at 5 and the detox program just before that, which within a month of implementation, led to a significant improvement in his speech and OT therapy progress. I should let me wife add points in here as she was working with them closely during this time - I merely worked several jobs to bring in enough money to fund it.
Did something else happen that coincided at the time which was the real cause of his recovery that I missed? Sure, entirely possible! But I don't overlook the fact that I am among many others who have seen this same correlation. So this is what's true for me.
I'm on the autism spectrum, and there's this autistic girl that learned to communicate by keyboard. Everything she said clicked with me, and now I understand what's going on a lot more.
Flashing lights make me lose balance. Seeing too many faces gives me headaches. I can hear many conversations at once. A lot of the way people ignore stimuli, I have to learn to do manually or I get overwhelmed.
I'm glad things make more sense for you and that you're (hopefully if I'm inferring this right) dealing with your particular challenges better. As for the many people stimuli, my son has that too. Up until now we've either removed him from the environment, or directed his attention so he can focus on something to prevent the overwhelm (the latter a more recent tactic with limited success). I am hopeful that in the not too distant future he will understand what he is dealing with and can take effective measures for himself, as you do now.
Exactly.
The people that it didn't work for, won't show up.And that's what I hate about it all.
It absolutely comes down to stimuli.Speech and occupations therapy at 3?
Diet changes at 5.Your child changed drastically between 3 and 5. You have absolutely nothing to go on to link detox and diet to that change. Maybe your child is growing out of it. I did. I didn't have a diet change or a detox.
Guess what else happens at 5. Preschool.
There are massive leaps in understanding of language between 3 and 5. Sexuality changes, and social relationship changes.Correlation is not proof.
I absolutely hate that we use correlation for everything now. Understanding and causation is proof. You can correlate anything. \Correlation is witchcraft.
Does she float? Ah, a witch.
That's what correlation is.
And the only reason I care about this, is that I just went through what I thought was my deathbed from the flu. All because I skipped a flu vaccine. I can't imagine not having the measles or mumps vaccine.
The pooch is screwed if we have an epidemic of the mumps. That's black death right there. You think Ebola is bad? Imagine if every disease that we've beat back suddenly outbreaks. Imagine if measles mumps and whatnot come back. 80% infant death rate....
All for a correlation that a few thousand have speculated has helped their kids with autism.
Something that could have just as easily been, he's 5 now and not 3.
And I wouldn't give a damn, except that the risk that you are taking, could mean death for millions.
-
Not having kids immunized based on iffy evidence (It was Jonas Salk's 100th birthday this week FFS).
Having labels such as organic are somehow magically better for you despite no evidence and this might hurtfuture high yield (GMO) crops that could save many millions from starvation and food shortages.Both beliefs you hold will adversely affect many people in the future because you are putting your personal experience in front of rigorous research.
Jonas Salk is turning over in his grave with what the drug companies have done to butcher his original vaccine.I give up, I just don't have the references available. Maybe they'll become widely available someday. As of this point, I'll just shut up on the topic since I can do nothing effective here.
-
Except it has a well-defined meaning. Whether that meaning is worth paying extra for is up in the air, and they shouldn't have co-opted a term that already had a well-defined meaning in science, but "organic" with regards to food means something, unlike "the cloud", which means jack shit.
Actually, organic is not a well-defined word when it comes to marketing, at least not as far as the governing bodies are concerned. Sure, there are a few guidelines that must be met, but it's a pretty broad term.
Source: My wife, who has a degree in food science, and (until recently) worked in regulatory compliance for a nutraceutical company.
-
It's quite another to introduce a poison a-la-Monsanto (think Roundup) into the very genetic structure of your food.
Say what? Introduce Roundup into the DNA of our food?
I've seen stuff about them making crops more resistant to weed killers, but this is the first I've seen about them growing crops with built in weed killer. Where'd you get that one?
-
So how do I know my "organic" wheat is really organic (or vice versa)? The choice has already been taken away from us long term as GMO wheat is already in the wild and thus cross-pollination contaminating organic wheat will eventually occur everywhere. This is the global experiment I am referring to - we have no "control" in that we don't have an area we're keeping indefinitely isolated from GMO, to say nothing of another planet, to compare against.
Good luck getting a completely isolated environment. Plan to do your testing on the moon?
Roundup injected in the genetic structure
You keep saying that like it's a thing ...
Jenny McCarthy's book helped my wife look into 1) Stopping immunizations
There's absolutely no good science behind that. In fact, the studies that supported that have all been proven fraudulent. <sarcasm>Thanks for breaking herd immunity and making other people who can't be immunized less safe.</sarcasm>
-
Whether my son dies of smallpox or mercury poisoning from immunization needle #12 (cumulative effect), he's just as dead.
The mercury used in an immunization is chemically bound to other elements. It is non-harmful, and doesn't build up in your body.
-
And I wouldn't give a damn, except that the risk that you are taking, could mean death for millions.
The risk I am taking is for my family alone. Example: If you are immunized from mumps and are exposed to my son while he is infected with mumps, the theory is (if vaccines work, which to this extent I do believe they do) you would NOT contract mumps as your body already knows how to fight it. No need for you to go near death for 5 days while your body is figuring it out. So my not vaccinating my son doesn't put you at risk.
Thanks for breaking herd immunity and making other people who can't be immunized less safe.
This is NOT true. See above.
And the only reason I care about this, is that I just went through what I thought was my deathbed from the flu. All because I skipped a flu vaccine.
You sure? See this. If you were infected by a new strain, the vaccine would mean nothing. If what got you happened to be in the vaccine, then you probably would have been all right.
Your child changed drastically between 3 and 5. You have absolutely nothing to go on to link detox and diet to that change. Maybe your child is growing out of it. I did. I didn't have a diet change or a detox.
Except I do have something to go on. If I feed him GMO bread (or anything with gluten in it for that matter), his symptoms return. So I can pay for the organic food, or have a disconnected child who hums at the wall all the time and can't communicate with anyone. Same for caseine (dairy) products.
You want to know what really prompted us to go all out to find something that would help him? Just before he turned 5, he figured out how to unlock the windows - and promptly tried to climb through them. Repeatedly. To the point I nailed shut all the windows so he wouldn't fall 10 feet to the concrete below (good thing my dad was the landlord at the time or I would have been looking for a new apartment shortly thereafter!) Again, at the time no reasoning with him. Scared the hell out of my wife the first time when she barely caught him.
So maybe this isn't proof that "regular food" is bad for him. But I see adverse effects on him any time he touches any, which is enough for me to ensure he doesn't get access to any.
-
The mercury used in an immunization is chemically bound to other elements. It is non-harmful, and doesn't build up in your body.
If that were true then the detox program administered by his pediatrician would not have caused any reactions, as far as I know.
-
What he was trying to discredit was the combined MMR vaccine,
You know, I don't think I've ever had it put that succinctly before--clearly until now I didn't quite understand his original study. Thanks!
-
There is data that overuse of antibiotics has created superbugs. Is it so far off to think that the immunizations suppressing/eliminating one strain of viruses wouldn't prompt nature to evolve a more robust (and possibly deadly) form of that same virus? What you're really seeing is the consequences of an as yet not fully understood process.
Yes. If a virus is suppressed through immunization, then it can't reproduce to mutate and evolve.
There are two big contributing factors to why we see superbugs from anti-biotics:
- Overprescribing - People will get prescribed antibiotics for infections which are clearly viral. I place the blame for this on the Doctors, who should know better.
- Misuse - People stop taking the antibiotics when they start feeling better. This allows some of the bacteria to survive, with a resistance to the antibiotic. If this process is repeated enough, you get a super bug.
Since you can't really "overprescribe" or "misuse" your immune system the same way, you don't run the risk of evolving a super bug from the use of immunizations. And if we did, odds are we would have seen it by now.
-
All for a correlation that a few thousand have speculated has helped their kids with autism.
Don't forget the US alone has already had several local outbreaks of measles since the anti-vaxxer morons started getting undeserved airtime.
BTW, people who object to the pace of the modern vaccination schedule? I understand that. Get your kid all the important[1] damned vaccines, but go ahead & spread 'em out a bit.
[1] My personal opinion is that some of the newer ones are less than necessary, like varicela, but then again I had chicken pox at about age 7 and it wasn't actually that bad. This is just an anecdote.
-
The mercury used in an immunization is chemically bound to other elements. It is non-harmful, and doesn't build up in your body.
Fun fact: Thimerosal used to be used in contact lens cleaner and/or rewetting drops, and yet there was never an outbreak of mad contact-lens disease.
-
-
If I feed him GMO bread (or anything with gluten in it for that matter), his symptoms return
Have you done a double blind test on this? You're almost certainly a huge influence on his life, if you feed him food you suspect is going to harm him there are all sorts of cues he might pick up on making his behaviour regress.
-
Say what? Introduce Roundup into the DNA of our food?
I've seen stuff about them making crops more resistant to weed killers, but this is the first I've seen about them growing crops with built in weed killer. Where'd you get that one?
I don't have an article that explicitly claims that, as that was shown to me at a conference. However, some of the building blocks that led up to that can be found here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx
A lot of people will say "tl;dr" but that one article contains answers to a lot of the questions posed in this thread.
-
You know, I don't think I've ever had it put that succinctly before--clearly until now I didn't quite understand his original study. Thanks!
Looks like I may have been wrong about him being paid to promote the individual vaccines, I could have sworn I'd seen it somewhere reputable but can't find a source now. He was being paid by lawyers looking to make a case against MMR, and is on record as recommending separate vaccines.
Rationalwiki.org has a pretty funny summary
-
Gluten Intolerance May Be Completely Fake: Study
Foods that contain gluten but aren't bread have the same effects on him, but I appreciate the article.
Have you done a double blind test on this? You're almost certainly a huge influence on his life, if you feed him food you suspect is going to harm him there are all sorts of cues he might pick up on making his behaviour regress.
Interesting point. We haven't tried in the last several years. Perhaps I could have his grandmother prepare something with gluten in it and mix it in with food he's used to so we can observe the results. I'll bring this up to my wife, see if she's willing (as she has to suffer the consequences for up to a week when he regresses).
-
The risk I am taking is for my family alone. Example: If you are immunized from mumps and are exposed to my son while he is infected with mumps, the theory is (if vaccines work, which to this extent I do believe they do) you would NOT contract mumps as your body already knows how to fight it. No need for you to go near death for 5 days while your body is figuring it out. So my not vaccinating my son doesn't put you at risk.
You don't understand immunizations and herd immunity do you?
Here's how it goes:
- Not everyone can be immunized. There are some people who are allergic to the immunizations, or who are immuno-compromised. These people rely on herd immunity.
- Immunization isn't 100% effective. More like 99% effective. So not everyone who gets immunized is protected.
So, your kid, who you chose not to immunize, gets the mumps, and comes into contact with someone from group 2. No big deal, they were one of the lucky 99%. The next day, he comes into contact with someone else from group 2. That person was one of the not so lucky 1%. They get sick as well. That person then comes into contact with someone from group 1, who is totally screwed because they could not be immunized. Thanks to your fucked up choice.
So, again, you have broken the herd immunity.
-
So, your kid, who you chose not to immunize, gets the mumps, and comes into contact with someone from group 2. No big deal, they were one of the lucky 99%. The next day, he comes into contact with someone else from group 2. That person was one of the not so lucky 1%. They get sick as well. That person then comes into contact with someone from group 1, who is totally screwed because they could not be immunized. Thanks to your fucked up choice.
So, again, you have broken the herd immunity.
But if I give him an immunization that has an adverse effect on his nervous system and debilitates him, that's ok?
Do you really think I want to withhold the positive side of immunizations from him?
Sometimes the choices you have all suck.
-
But if I give him an immunization that has an adverse effect on his nervous system and debilitates him, that's ok?
It doesn't happen!! That is pure conjecture.
-
Listen, I am a little-l libertarian. I am all for fucking freedom, but what you are doing by not vaccinating your child could possibly harm my child, my loved ones or myself. If you want to feed your child "probiotic" yogurt until he refuses it (another of Jenny McCarthy's "miracle cures"), go ahead. Excess calcium rarely causes a problem. If you want to buy all organic, it is your money to piss away. Buy $5 potatoes, I don't care.
But when vast swaths of the population stop getting immunized based upon fallacious assumptions, I have problems. I do not want my son to live through another outbreak of smallpox or mumps or polio. I do not wish that on anyone, and this whole batshit crazy movement started by a neurotic woman who got famous by baring her tits for money is hurting society as a whole.
-
They are all sold by different sellers who don't necessarily price the same way.
Scratch that, it's probably
$9 from the first seller for 1 pound$8.25 from the second seller for 2 because they have good rates (comparatively)$8.89 + absurd shipping to look competitive pricing.
The first seller is pricing high because he only wants customers who are worth their salt.
The second seller is pricing lower to attract people who are salty about the higher prices from the first seller.
The third seller's price might look to be better, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
@Intercourse said:
neurotic woman who got famous by
bearingbaring her tits for money is hurting society as a whole.FTFY.
-
Gracias amigo. That's what happens when I type while angry. ;)
-
I didn't know better back then anyway.
It's not clear that you know better now, either.
-
@Intercourse said:
No, it is absolutely collectivism. You have a group of people who are seeing correlation and are calling it causation. It is a self-reinforcing collectivism.
That's not collectivism. Groupthink is a better word here.
-
Dang. I may be using more Likes here than in /t/1000
-
@Intercourse said:
redwizard:
But if I give him an immunization that has an adverse effect on his nervous system and debilitates him, that's ok?It doesn't happen!! That is pure conjecture.
/begins hunting for references/
Read the third paragraph: "When the results of...very high 7.6-fold elevated risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy."
Fourth paragraph: The CDC maintains there is "no relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism rates in children," even though the data from the CDC's own Vaccine Safety Datalink database shows a very high risk. There are a number of public records to back this up...
headdesk again. There's no frigging conspiracy, except for that one doctor who invented the vaccination link.
See above.
Also:
5:20 minutes in: MMR vaccine increases autism diagnosis frequency by 2.5x
Right after, other doctors at CDC look for ways to BURY this statistic.
10:10: Public Use Data Set from CDC available to you on request BY LAW. So you can pull this yourself if you want, but YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT (and know about it to even ask for it.
27:15: Collaboration between CDC and associates discussed re: "more mercury is good for you." WTF?
Filed under: Nope, no conspiracy here...
-
So they say vegetarians are less violent, now we know the reason [spoiler] they are only shooting blanks [/spoiler]
-
Read the third paragraph: "When the results of...very high 7.6-fold elevated risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy."
Eh...the linked abstract says that RR was 1.8, which is pretty thin gruel, as epidemiology goes.
CDC
I have to say, their handling of Ebola has certainly hurt their credibility, but these aren't the smoking gun RRs that you seem to think they are.
FWIW, RR for lung cancer from smoking is something like 22.
-
If it wasn't that bad, why are they trying to water down the statistics to erase the correlation?
The video goes over some of that. THAT is the sort of thing that gets me angry.
