Vaccinations
-
There is no association with vaccination. The onset of schizophrenia is classically in the late teens and early 20s. Symptoms of autism (a very different disorder) can become apparent very early but they usually manifest most clearly around age 2. Because of these confounding factors we are left to rely on a HUGE body of information with large epidemiological studies that causally fails to support the hypothesis that vaccinations cause/reveal/exacerbate autism. And I've seen dozens and dozens of schizophrenics and autism spectrum patients so I guess my "personal experience" should trump yours too? But since I'm part of the medical profession I guess I'm the enemy because I would rather kids not get measles encephalitis as a result of avoiding vaccinations based on a faulty premise.
- F
Quote:
There is no association with vaccination.
Says you. I have seen it so I am not sure how you can say that, other than you haven't seen it.
Quote:
usually manifest most clearly around age 2.
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this, it's always about money, but I have seen it. That trumps anything you have not seen.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Not even close. In the first hand, I said that science is the best tool we have because it admits it can be wrong and improves in what it knows, using proven methodologies to separate facts from assumptions and theories. In the second, I never came close to saying 'it's all I have', and in fact when you accused me of raising my kids without knowing God, I intimated that this is not the case at all. Having a belief in a higher power does not excuse or explain deliberate ignorance. You're jumping from topic to topic, avoiding any where it's clear your assumptions are wrong, yet assuming I must be wrong because I disagree with you. I asked you for a link to credible research, and defined what I mean by that, and said I would read it. I take it that no link being offered means that you know that any research you trust, fails the test of openness and rigour, which only proves why I should not trust it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Quote:
[science] admits it can be wrong
Again, you state that science can be wrong. Then you deny you say that.
Quote:
I asked you for a link to credible research, and defined what I mean by that, and said I would read it.
You must be getting your messages mixed up because you haven't done this. I did provide a search which provided lots of links. If I gave you a link that proved my point would you change your mind? No, of course you wouldn't. You are not interested in changing your mind because you would have to admit you were wrong. So, what's the point in me providing links to you that you will discredit anyway? I have lots of links, if you won't read them don't try to blame me.
Quote:
You're jumping from topic to topic,
No, I brought up religion as a comparison to what your original post was about. You are mad at people that believe differently than you. That's your point, in simple form. I simply stated that there are tons of people in this world mad at you for your beliefs as well. Just showing you that it is not one-sided.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
you accused me of not knowing anything about autism. I proved you wrong and you just never mentioned it again. Ditto when you accused me of raising heathen children. You keep going, and just drop any accusation that does not work out.
ryanb31 wrote:
Science recently did a study stating that drinking wine is good for you.
Not really. A focus group paid for by wine sellers found this. The tannins in wine are good for you, but they are also in grape juice. And science has proven that anyone who does a study, will try to come up with the results their employer wants, even if they try to be impartial. That's why impartial science is always best, not vested interest studies.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have to take what science gives you and then apply reason to it. You can't just take it blindly, because as even you admitted, it is often wrong.
your ignorance of what I said and what science is, is on open display, because you keep throwing it out there and ignoring my comments.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Quote:
you accused me of not knowing anything about autism.
Not true. I am not sure if you are intentionally trying to incite something or if something I said honestly made you think that. You don't know enough about it, that is true. But I did not say you knew nothing about it. And, you have yet proven anything I said to be wrong. Your opinion is not proof.
Quote:
when you accused me of raising heathen children.
Give me a break. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're wasting my time. I never said this. Don't add to what I say.
Quote:
A focus group paid for by wine sellers found this.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Why don't you dig a little bit more to see who is paying for your so-called scientific studies. Find one and then dig more.
Quote:
your ignorance of what I said and what science is,
What part am I wrong about? I can go back and get your quotes.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
There are no reputable studies that show that.
Not according to your definition of reputable.
Quote:
Which only demonstrates that you know knowing about autism nor science.
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
Quote:
Have you ever heard of google?
I do. Here, let me help you. Click here.[^] Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source? Wow.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
One, anecdotal evidence might lead to a theory but is seldom (or perhaps never) evidence of causality. Two, a relationship by itself is never proof of causality. If it was everyone would need to start drinking and smoking (since at one time the worlds oldest man did both.) Three, vaccinations do not cause autism. Period. Vaccinations have side effects but that is not one. And that in proven, not conjecture.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't?
Per your other statements - your are correct in that you do not have the answer. Many relationships have been assumed to be causal because someone got sick, That however IGNORES the fact that there are many potential causes in day to day life and also ignores the KNOWN property that one can always find causality if one chooses the right group. Statistics, the science of statistics, goes to great lengths to determine how to avoid that.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source?
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor. And one that actually looks at the studies? Yes that is the source. Sigh...I suggest that you look up the "research" of the effects of cow urine which besides curing all known types of cancer also causes other ills as well. You will find that the "reseach" has even been published. I have no problem with someone wishing to believe in the healing power of prayer, voodoo or dancing around a stump in the woods at midnight. But none of those is supported by scientific knowledge. Just like your belief is not. Although it is quite possible that rather than having a positive belief you are allowing nothing but fear to drive your decisions.
-
You never understand logic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But your analogies never make sense and are so far from the topic at hand and draw so many false conclusions
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded. Other than that you can only state that you, yourself, do not find it apt. And since your beliefs/choices put others at risk (and probably yourself as well) and you demand the absolute right to do so then the analogy is apt.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
One, anecdotal evidence might lead to a theory but is seldom (or perhaps never) evidence of causality. Two, a relationship by itself is never proof of causality. If it was everyone would need to start drinking and smoking (since at one time the worlds oldest man did both.) Three, vaccinations do not cause autism. Period. Vaccinations have side effects but that is not one. And that in proven, not conjecture.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't?
Per your other statements - your are correct in that you do not have the answer. Many relationships have been assumed to be causal because someone got sick, That however IGNORES the fact that there are many potential causes in day to day life and also ignores the KNOWN property that one can always find causality if one chooses the right group. Statistics, the science of statistics, goes to great lengths to determine how to avoid that.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source?
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor. And one that actually looks at the studies? Yes that is the source. Sigh...I suggest that you look up the "research" of the effects of cow urine which besides curing all known types of cancer also causes other ills as well. You will find that the "reseach" has even been published. I have no problem with someone wishing to believe in the healing power of prayer, voodoo or dancing around a stump in the woods at midnight. But none of those is supported by scientific knowledge. Just like your belief is not. Although it is quite possible that rather than having a positive belief you are allowing nothing but fear to drive your decisions.
Quote:
a relationship by itself is never proof of causality.
I agree. But how would you explain it. If autism is developed during pregnancy then how is it this 12 year old girl I know developed autism all of the sudden after receiving a shot? What a monumental coincidence? All you have is your silly "causality" statement. What caused it then?
Quote:
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor.
There's an oxymoron. What does cow urine have to do with anything? You claim it can cure cancer yet science still says there is no cure for cancer. So, which is it? Loony claims or science? You are fence-sitting.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You never understand logic.
The fact that you use a word in a sentence doesn't mean that it proves your point.
Quote:
The fact that you use a word in a sentence doesn't mean that it proves your point.
Waste of time. What in the world is this supposed to mean? And, you rarely make sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But your analogies never make sense and are so far from the topic at hand and draw so many false conclusions
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded. Other than that you can only state that you, yourself, do not find it apt. And since your beliefs/choices put others at risk (and probably yourself as well) and you demand the absolute right to do so then the analogy is apt.
Quote:
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded.
Succeeded? Yes, I understood you were trying to make an analogy. No, the analogy did not work. So, if you call that succeeding, you have low expectations of yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
but the odds of vaccination causing it, are zero. This is a proven fact.
It is not a proven fact. If it were a proven fact I would not have been able to witness it. At one point in history, it was a proven fact that the earth was flat. Doctors used to encourage patients to smoke, and that was only 60 years ago!! You think you are so smart because of some scientific study funded by the medical industry that even when someone says they have witnessed it you still claim it can't be true. This quote describes you to a T. "Why is it that when you tell a man there are 400 billion stars he will believe you, but when you tell him there's wet paint he has to touch it?"
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
At one point in history, it was a proven fact that the earth was flat.
How was it proven? ;P
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
ryanb31 wrote:
At one point in history, it was a proven fact that the earth was flat.
How was it proven? ;P
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
Science. Of course they were wrong but science is often wrong. I don't understand people that blindly believe science and nothing else, not even their own common sense. Science is great, but it is not perfect and should only be 1 of many ways we look at things.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Science. Of course they were wrong but science is often wrong. I don't understand people that blindly believe science and nothing else, not even their own common sense. Science is great, but it is not perfect and should only be 1 of many ways we look at things.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Science. Of course they were wrong but science is often wrong.
No. What is the proof that the Earth is or was flat? How was it proved?
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
I have seen it. You can Google all day long and try to pretend like it does not happen, but I have seen it with mine own eyes. Twice. Get some hard evidence. All you have is research done by the medical industry. No wonder you can't see the truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I have seen it. You can Google all day long and try to pretend like it does not happen, but I have seen it with mine own eyes. Twice.
It was my understanding that your second "example" was schizophrenia. And since you did not provide any specifics I have no way to do any actual research. Other than that...anecdotal evidence is NOT proof of causality. Period. Matter of fact in the world of humans it is almost certain that the VAST majority of anecdotal evidence does not ever represent a casual relationship. I respect your right to believe anything you want. So claim that your religion (personal) is against vaccines and that god himself told you this. Then I support your right to that. But your current belief is NOT scientific. The scientific process has PROVEN that vaccinations do not cause autism. Thus in the one specific case that your related it is a COINCIDENCE. And just to be clear that means the autism would have shown up even if the child had NOT been vaccinated.
ryanb31 wrote:
Get some hard evidence. All you have is research done by the medical industry. No wonder you can't see the truth.
Cow urine. Human urine. Homeopathy. Crystals. And others... All of the above has research that shows "hard" evidence of their medical benefits, but none by the medical industry. So I guess you better start using those.
-
Quote:
There is no association with vaccination.
Says you. I have seen it so I am not sure how you can say that, other than you haven't seen it.
Quote:
usually manifest most clearly around age 2.
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this, it's always about money, but I have seen it. That trumps anything you have not seen.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I have seen it
Since you're not willing to reveal any details (or you don't know any more) it's not like your hypothesis is open to critical scrutiny. You're just declaring it to be so, therefore it is so. This is problematic to an open discussion. I would suggest you're demonstrating the cognitive fallacy of premature closure. Google it.
ryanb31 wrote:
She was perfectly normal
That's contradictory to the diagnostic criteria for autism which requires symptoms to be present before the age of three - so if she does have a DSM appropriate diagnosis, your hypothesis kind of falls apart by definition. Also, are vaccinations the only, only, ONLY possible temporally associated events? What if she got mercury poisoning from some tuna she ate? What if she had a hypoxic brain injury? Or a meningitis? Or encephalitis? How can anyone, especially you, be sure about your conclusion when you fail to demonstrate that you've properly thought through the alternatives? As for the money argument, don't you think doctors have kids that get autism? Are you suggesting that we would rather have money from drug companies than healthy kids? And that nearly every doctor is complicit in this global deception? Kind of a stretch.
- F
-
Quote:
There is no association with vaccination.
Says you. I have seen it so I am not sure how you can say that, other than you haven't seen it.
Quote:
usually manifest most clearly around age 2.
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this, it's always about money, but I have seen it. That trumps anything you have not seen.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this,
Far as I can tell medicine wouldn't classify that as autism. But I can suppose that if this happened a while ago that some overly enthusiastic diagnostician came up with that either because autism wasn't well understood (and still isn't) or had no other explanation. But one thing is certain that is so wildly atypical that is isn't even worth addressing.
-
Quote:
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded.
Succeeded? Yes, I understood you were trying to make an analogy. No, the analogy did not work. So, if you call that succeeding, you have low expectations of yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Succeeded? Yes, I understood you were trying to make an analogy
Thus it was in fact an analogy.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, if you call that succeeding, you have low expectations of yourself.
Your failure to to accept it has nothing to do with my mental state.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I have seen it
Since you're not willing to reveal any details (or you don't know any more) it's not like your hypothesis is open to critical scrutiny. You're just declaring it to be so, therefore it is so. This is problematic to an open discussion. I would suggest you're demonstrating the cognitive fallacy of premature closure. Google it.
ryanb31 wrote:
She was perfectly normal
That's contradictory to the diagnostic criteria for autism which requires symptoms to be present before the age of three - so if she does have a DSM appropriate diagnosis, your hypothesis kind of falls apart by definition. Also, are vaccinations the only, only, ONLY possible temporally associated events? What if she got mercury poisoning from some tuna she ate? What if she had a hypoxic brain injury? Or a meningitis? Or encephalitis? How can anyone, especially you, be sure about your conclusion when you fail to demonstrate that you've properly thought through the alternatives? As for the money argument, don't you think doctors have kids that get autism? Are you suggesting that we would rather have money from drug companies than healthy kids? And that nearly every doctor is complicit in this global deception? Kind of a stretch.
- F
Quote:
Since you're not willing to reveal any details
I have several times, just not in messages to you. Since you asked: 1. 12 year old girl who acted and appeared perfectly normal. She had her regular doctors visits and was a healthy girl. She received a shot, I don't remember which one it was, and within days she was a very different person. Within weeks she could not talk anymore and her behavior was very different. She was later diagnosed autistic. 2. A 20 year old man received a shot and developed schizophrenia. He had been quarter back for our high school and was very healthy. Now, he can't even speak straight.
Quote:
the diagnostic criteria for autism which requires symptoms to be present before the age of three
Yes, thank you for supporting what I am saying. You all say that autism can't be "caught" and will be shown in infancy yet I give you an example of where it has happened to a 12 year old and you say I must be wrong. You remind me of the doctors who ran tests on our 2 year old son because he was having seizures. All of the tests they ran showed he was healthy, yet he was having seizures. All you do is stare at a piece of paper that says it can't be related to vaccines and yet ignore the monumentally obvious evidence right in front of you.
Quote:
your hypothesis kind of falls apart by definition.
On the contrary, yours does because I have seen it happen after 3 years old.
Quote:
What if she got mercury poisoning from some tuna she ate?
So, this would appear to me that you are admitting mercury poisoning could cause autism? And you also know some vaccines use mercury which is why you brought this up. So, if you know mercury is in some vaccines and you know mercury can cause autism how in the world can you not put 1 and 1 together. You say it is impossible, yet you admit it is possible. You are right though, I have no proof, other than observation, that the vaccine caused her autism. But what a huge coincidence that after 12 years of healthy life all of the sudden the autism decided to be made manifest just after a vaccine shot. Amazing. And as I pointed out earlier to someone else, all you have to do is google it and you'll see that this is not an isolated incident. Many, many, people make the same claim. How can you ignore that?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this,
Far as I can tell medicine wouldn't classify that as autism. But I can suppose that if this happened a while ago that some overly enthusiastic diagnostician came up with that either because autism wasn't well understood (and still isn't) or had no other explanation. But one thing is certain that is so wildly atypical that is isn't even worth addressing.
Quote:
wasn't well understood
It was 4 years ago. And if it is not well understood why do you believe the claims that it is impossible to get from vaccines? That just lacks intelligence.
Quote:
so wildly atypical
So, clearly you did not read any of the links I posted earlier. Just google it. This is not even close to an isolated incident. Is it still under 1%, ya probably. But even a tenth of 1% of 7 billion people is still a lot of people.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Science. Of course they were wrong but science is often wrong.
No. What is the proof that the Earth is or was flat? How was it proved?
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
Quote:
his definition is the scientific one.
Thank you for proving my point. Has science ever been wrong?
Quote:
not evident from birth
Do you even know anyone autistic? You are full of it. I have some good friends who have had 2 autistic children and the doctor, not a "lunatic", told them they were autistic.
Quote:
A much larger number of people die from not being immunised.
Not in the US.
Quote:
the facts,
I'm telling you I have seen it, if you search Google you'll see there are many, many people who make the same claim. We're all lying? Oh, to be as smart as you. If we could all be so lucky.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Has science ever been wrong?
Yep. But far, far, far more average people have been wrong in presuming that anecdotal evidence is proof of causality.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not in the US.
Nonsense. Completely and utterly wrong. In 2010 there where 27,000+ DIAGNOSED cases of whooping cough. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/fast-facts.html[^] On average 20 children die every year from it. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/fs-parents.html[^] The best scientific methods can only attribute a single death associated with vaccination in the years 1990-1992. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause[^]