Smashing the Vegetarian Vaccination Binary! #BecauseScienceIsStillAThing
-
we have no "control" in that we don't have an area we're keeping indefinitely isolated from GMO
Uh
-
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.
I'm not going to watch the video. The article you linked misrepresented the paper (at least what was reported in the abstract, and I can't imagine that anyone would mask a 7.6 RR with a 1.8 RR in an abstract).
I have no idea what you're talking about WRT watering down the statistics. What I'm seeing is an attempt to puff them up. A 7.6 RR sounds potentially interesting. 1.8 is nearly yawnsville.
Maybe they're talking about the RR going from 0.23 to 7.6. Who knows. It's a magic number. Let me know if these guys spot any black helicopters.
I'm glad that your son is doing better, but the evidence you're presented is the opposite of persuasive.
-
Well you don't want to buy more non-GMO salt at once than you're going to use. Think of all that salt that'll go bad and you'll have to throw out.
-
Filed under: Nope, no conspiracy here...
I mean this with all seriousness, you are sounding very "tinfoil hat" now. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you will have to tone it down with the crazy conspiracy theories.
-
Well you don't want to buy more non-GMO salt at once than you're going to use. Think of all that salt that'll go bad and you'll have to throw out.
The key is to keep it tightly sealed, in a cool place. Without preservatives, salt is likely to mold. It is like bread and other baked goods.
-
The article you linked misrepresented the paper (at least what was reported in the abstract, and I can't imagine that anyone would mask a 7.6 RR with a 1.8 RR in an abstract).
You missed the point.
The 1.88 is the misrepresentation.
The video is where the doctor explains and shows the CDC changing the wording and outright lying to the public about its own statistics.
-
@Intercourse said:
I mean this with all seriousness, you are sounding very "tinfoil hat" now. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you will have to tone it down with the crazy conspiracy theories.
Perhaps. Can be difficult, as I'm describing years of personal hell that resulted from misinformation and outright lies from an organization that's supposed to represent the public interest. Consider me just an angry parent that wants to see the system fixed.
-
You missed the point.
I don't think he did.
The video is where the doctor explains and shows the CDC changing the wording and outright lying to the public about its own statistics.
The point I got from what he was saying is that watching the video would be a bit like watching "Loose Change".
years of personal hell that resulted from misinformation and outright lies from an organization that's supposed to represent the public interest.
Didn't happen. They are sometimes incompetent, but think about the level of maliciousness you are talking about here. What you are saying is that hundreds, if not thousands, of people at the CDC conspired to bury evidence that vaccines cause autism, with no real benefit to themselves. Then why would they do so? Are they all just Bond villains sitting at a desk somewhere stroking a strange looking hairless cat?
-
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.
Well that's funny, as there was a request from this very site that quote insertions should always go at the cursor position. So that is how it is now.We used to insert them at the bottom.
(I agree with that change for the record)
Multi quoting will always be a bit more work than mashing reply over and over, but at least the composer stays up so you can continue to read as you formulate your reply.
-
Is The CDC Hiding Data About Mercury, Vaccines, And Autism?
If you see assertions in your timelines and newsfeeds like "CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism", send the disseminators here. Why? Read on.
Read a little bit, from a mostly reputable source that does not have an axe to grind on the autism issue...as far as I know.
-
@Intercourse said:
What you are saying is that hundreds, if not thousands, of people at the CDC conspired to bury evidence that vaccines cause autism, with no real benefit to themselves.
In all seriousness, this was done by a few key people, not the whole organization. Just like when Enron went down, not everyone working at Enron was in on the deal - only a select few in key positions at the top knew what was really going on and reaping the benefits.
Yes it did happen. More data that is not available to me right now on the history of Thimerosal has everything to do with it. To be honest, I was surprised I could even find the references I did - they were posted months after the seminar I attended where I first saw them presented myself.
In the end, Thimerosal got pulled. It's a step in the right direction. As with any progress, it's one step at a time.
-
(I agree with that change for the record)
I agree also. Sometimes I need to add a quote somewhere besides the bottom. I would rather just keep my cursor at the bottom unless I need to do otherwise. In other circumstances, I would have to insert quote, copy, move cursor, paste, resume what I was doing.
This would greatly slow me down when I am being a smug asshole in this toxic environment.
-
@Intercourse said:
This would greatly slow me down when I am being a smug asshole in this toxic environment.
+1
-
Read the Forbes article. There was no conspiracy. None. This was a preliminary abstract. It was not final. It was a point-in-time of a multi-step study. If you get to pick and choose your sample sizes and data points, you can fucking prove anything.
-
@Intercourse said:
greatly slow me down when I am being a smug asshole in this toxic environment.
Indeed, speed is of the essence!
-
Damn straight. Trolling ain't easy.
-
@Intercourse said:
Read the Forbes article. There was no conspiracy. None. This was a preliminary abstract. It was not final. It was a point-in-time of a multi-step study. If you get to pick and choose your sample sizes and data points, you can fucking prove anything.
@Intercourse said:
Read a little bit, from a mostly reputable source that does not have an axe to grind on the autism issue...as far as I know.
Isn't the bottom line here getting results for our kids? That's always been my operating basis. I don't know how far I could have reached with my son if I had simply accepted what was standardly available (nothing, or a drug with questionable benefits).
Watch the video of the doctor I posted. That was exactly his point - when you don't cherry-pick, you get a significant statistical correlation.
The Forbes article is claiming the exact opposite.
FUD at its finest, either way you look at it, resulting in exactly the kinds of debates this thread exemplifies. As a result, no one changes their mind and nothing is done about it. Microsoft execs would be proud.
The only resolution? Requesting the CDC data for yourself and doing the analysis for yourself, just like the doctor did in the video.
At this point I may just do that. The Freedom of Information Act is still in force, last I checked.
-
At this point I may just do that. The Freedom of Information Act is still in force, last I checked.
Had you read the article, you would realize that this is not exactly a document that is kept secret. Not posted on their homepage (but I wish they would, just to quell debates like this), but it is no conspiracy.
The idea is settled for me by the mere fact that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists out there that could make a career by proving such a thing and have not. It is only the kooks that seem to be able to come up with this stuff. People with an axe to grind, people with an agenda, people who only look at the data that proves their point while turning a blind eye to the reams and reams of data to the contrary.
-
I know I'm late to the party and all but I have to ask:
How do the autism rates in Japan compare with those in the West? Because if mercury causes autism, it should be an epidemic in Japan since they get more mercury than anyone (they eat a lot of fish and their local oceans are a bit of a toxic hell-stew).
-
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.
Sorry. There is like 40 posts I haven't read yet, but this is so wrong I had to jump in.
First of all, No your child was immunized for mumps, because the MMR-II vaccine by Merck & Co, Inc. CONTAINS NO Thimerosal! (AFAIK, the only one used in the US- Apologies if you live elsewhere)
Second, no, because when a virus replicates, it has the chance to mutate, and if it mutates, it can affect people on whom the vaccine worked perfectly.
Third, no, because a vaccine can make you more resistant, without making you completely immune. If you get the disease, you are more likely to recover faster- but it's not magic.
Fourth, no. Some people cannot get vaccinated. Perhaps they have a weak immune system. These people are rare, and depend on everyone else not having the disease. The more people who skip immunizations for poor reasons, they more at risk these people are.
-
@Intercourse said:
The idea is settled for me by the mere fact that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists out there that could make a career by proving such a thing and have not.
On the contrary, at least one doctor at the last autismone conference reasserted that he stands by his research after proving it (even though it was published that he "recanted") and his career is in ruins over it. THIS keeps others from doing the same thing, so the other doctors at the conference mostly promote "alternative" methods like diet without necessarily bucking the system too hard.
My son's second pediatrician was against immunizations. So much so, that one large insurance company removed him from their PPO until they met with him. What did they tell him? Not that he was wrong - no, they told him he was "too vocal" about his views and findings. Too bad he's retired now.
Quacks, perhaps? But they get results...
You can believe that of me if you will. Perhaps I am TRWTF on this issue. But I've been in both camps on this issue. You'd have to discredit multiple professionals I know before I would change my mind - some of which I've personally dealt with.
I do not wish to further this debate. It is clear I stand alone on this issue in this forum. I'm fine with that.
-
-
what was standardly available (nothing, or a drug with questionable benefits).
Or ABA, or various other behaviourism treatments
You'd have to discredit multiple professionals I know before I would change my mind
Appeal to authority?
You'd have to discredit thousands of professionals and, more importantly, their peer reviewed, published work before changing the scientific consensus
-
Well that's funny, as there was a request from this very site that quote insertions should always go at the cursor position. So that is how it is now.
We used to insert them at the bottom.
(I agree with that change for the record)
Multi quoting will always be a bit more work than mashing reply over and over, but at least the composer stays up so you can continue to read as you formulate your reply.
STOP TAKING US OFF TOPIC YOU TOXIC MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY!
-
You missed the point.
The 1.88 is the misrepresentation.
The video is where the doctor explains and shows the CDC changing the wording and outright lying to the public about its own statistics.
The video seems to be talking about another point. He mentioned an RR of 2.5. That's getting into the range of observational studies that are possibly interesting. But you'd need a lot more than this to really link it. And all of that assumes the rest of the stuff is good.
-
Watch the video of the doctor I posted. That was exactly his point - when you don't cherry-pick, you get a significant statistical correlation.
The Forbes article is claiming the exact opposite.
That's not what it's saying at all. It says that when you look at the data it's not conclusive that there's a link:
The CDC screening study of thimerosal-containing vaccines was perceived at first as a positive study that found an association between thimerosal and some neurodevelopmental outcomes. This was the perception both independent scientists and antivaccine lobbyists had at the conclusion of the first phase of the study. It was foreseen from the very start that any positive outcome would lead to a second phase.
Because the findings of the first phase were not replicated in the second phase, the perception of the study changed from a positive to a neutral study. Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative by many, including the antivaccine lobbyists. The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come.
And then, about covering up the data, a Senate committee found:
Allegation # 2: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) convened the Simpsonwood Conference to cover up the finding that thimerosal causes autism.
Findings: The allegation is not substantiated. … Instead of hiding the data or restricting access to it, CDC distributed it, often to individuals who had never seen it before, and solicited outside opinion regarding how to interpret it. The transcript of these discussions was made available to the public. The data was also discussed at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a public forum held on June 21 and 22, 2000. Simpsonwood participants generally agreed that the VSD data set was weak, it was difficult to assess causality, and further study and investigation were warranted.
-
Isn't the bottom line here getting results for our kids?
Sure. And a placebo is sometimes awesomesauce. No one here thinks we shouldn't be researching autism. But we should follow good procedure.
Recommending not vaccinating a child with no immuno-deficiencies seems like going for a bad result with the kid.
-
Recommending not vaccinating a child with no immuno-deficiencies because you're worried about an ingredient that isn't actually in the vaccine seems like going for a bad result with the kid.
Added something that I felt was important.
-
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 what vaccines do then.
If there's a strain A, and the vaccine is 99% effective, and 1% get the virus, it may never mutate. If it does mutate, it is only sourced from less than 1% of the population.
Our own immune system is often quick enough to handle a small amount of a new strain. With only 1% of the population to get infected from, you may only receive a small amount once and once only.
With such a small dose of a virus, you may never notice symptoms. Without symptoms, you can't spread it.
But all these factors are exponential.
Increase the % to 5%, and you have less than 5% to get a new strain, but that's per person, now you can also get 2 new strains, and while your body is trying to develop anti-bodies for 2 new strains, you also develop a new strain in the process. This is what overcomes your immune system.
Increase the % to 25%, and that's 25% of population with which to get contact and infected. At this point, 2 or more likely have their own strains, and then you get infected with multiple new strains simultaneously. You develop, not one new strain, but 2 or more yourself, and also spread that to others.
Then by the end of the week, everyone you've come in contact with has caught 2 or more strains the immunization doesn't protect from.
Now, you have an epidemic.
-
But if I give him an immunization that has an adverse effect on his nervous system and debilitates him, that's ok?
I bet that the immunizations didn't have any effect on him. what evidence do you have that the immunizations were affecting him?
- Your personal observations
@redwizard said:All I know is that exposure did take place, as he did have reactions that indicated so when he went through the detox program.
Are you qualified to identify the effects of heavy metal poisoning? If not, did you take him to someone who is qualified, and did they say that he was suffering from the effects of having mercury in your system?
2. Your claim that Thimerosal is just as bad as elemental mercury. First off, there multiple studies indicating that this is not the case. Any evidence to the contrary has either been proven fraudulent, or is purely anecdotal. In the case of your anecdote, it cannot be relied upon because you changed multiple factors in your son's environment at one time, so no single thing can be identified as the source of his improvement.Do you really think I want to withhold the positive side of immunizations from him?
You still don't get it. By not immunizing your child, it's not just your son's health at risk. You are endangering public health.
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...
Correlation != causationUntil a controlled, reproducible study is done, the claim that there is a link between Thimerosal and autism is just fear-mongering. The current studies indicate no significant risk. The 1.8 RR in the abstract that @boomzilla mentioned is effectively insignificant.
Also, please stop referencing Autism One. They are an echo chamber for your opinion. If you can find an unbiased source that supports you, I'll take a look.
- Your personal observations
-
@Intercourse said:
Want an epidemic? Make one.
Obesity epidemic - change the BMI ranges! Even though per-capita calorie consumption has decreased over the years, we're getting fatter - sugar is evil, it must be taxed!
Salt epidemic - reduce the 'safe level.' EveEven though consumption etc. Tax, etc.
I'd like ot know when the meaning of 'epidemic' changed to include things that couldn't be caught from other people. Oh, I see...
Filed under: Second Hand Obesity.
The risk I am taking is for my family alone, [waffle] So my not vaccinating my son doesn't put you at risk.
No. If enough people think like you, in that you're not endangering anyone else, the whole lot of you are collectively breaking herd immunity. Herd immunity protects those who either cannot take the vaccine, or for whom the vaccine is ineffective for whatever reason.
It has nothing to do with 'infecting' those who've had the vaccine, and for whom it was successful, you allude to in your waffling that I omitted.
-
Salt epidemic - reduce the 'safe level.' EveEven though consumption etc. Tax, etc.
Yeah, here in the USA we have recently found out that the recommended daily allowances that we have been told for years are low enough that if anyone had followed them stringently it would have caused harm.
I like my doctor's advice: If you have two working kidneys and no high blood pressure, don't worry about your salt intake.
-
Without symptoms, you can't spread it.
Are you sure about that? I thought a lot of diseases were infectious before symptoms show, hence why ebola can potentially be transferred on a plane where everybody felt healthy getting on and off it
-
Unless you share bodily fluids with strangers on an airplane, you are not going to get ebola anyway...
-
Are you sure about that?
Yes, Ebola is only contagious when you are symptomatic.
Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.
(Fun fact: I have all those symptoms on a regular basis except the fever. If I develop a fever, I'm rushing right out to get an ebola test, because hell if I can tell the difference.)
-
Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.
Let's post this everywhere and watch the panic when flu season is in full swing.
-
Are you sure about that? I thought a lot of diseases were infectious before symptoms show, hence why ebola can potentially be transferred on a plane where everybody felt healthy getting on and off it
Ebola is contagious only when the infected is symptomatic. However, not everyone feels ill when they have fever, which counts as a symptom.
However, you are correct that there are some illnesses that are communicable before being symptomatic. As far as I understand, those are mostly respiratory illnesses though.
@Intercourse said:
Unless you share bodily fluids with strangers on an airplane, you are not going to get ebola anyway...
Didn't you see the report that about Ebola patients expelling saliva and mucus when the cough or sneeze and how that can spread the virus to surfaces such as doorknobs? It's not the most efficient method of communicating the illness, but it is possible.
-
@Intercourse said:
flu season
-
Are you sure about that? I thought a lot of diseases were infectious before symptoms show, hence why ebola can potentially be transferred on a plane where everybody felt healthy getting on and off it
Seems like we're a lot more certain of this stuff that we probably should be:
“It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease, because we don’t have the numbers to back that up,” said Beutler, “It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even. People may have said that without symptoms you can’t transmit Ebola. I’m not sure about that being 100 percent true. There’s a lot of variation with viruses.”
-
That is a genius level meme right there.
-
I can't take credit, I found it on facebook a week ago :)
-
Ebola is contagious only when the infected is symptomatic. However, not everyone feels ill when they have fever, which counts as a symptom.
However, you are correct that there are some illnesses that are communicable before being symptomatic. As far as I understand, those are mostly respiratory illnesses though
So my point was correct but my example was misinformed. Nice
-
the evil idea thread is.... how does one point at right angles to reality when one is not a politician?
-
how does one point at right angles to reality when one is not a politician?
I can neither confirm nor deny that this is possible.
-
is that politician or secret service speak?
-
Both, and neither. You know too much. POTUS IS ON THE MOVE!!!
-
-sigh- i knew i should have stayed home today too.
-
My office is in my home, so I literally never get to say that. Boo.
-
-
Touche.
Genetically modified food in Oceania - Wikipedia
Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (Video 2009) ⭐ 7.1 | Documentary, History, War
