Vaccinations
-
ryanb31 wrote:
However, there are natural cures for the flu a
More nonsense.
ryanb31 wrote:
The CDC admits they can cause brain damage.
You said "or got a brain tumor from a polio vaccine". The CDC does NOT say that.
-
So, out of curiosity, how did they "prove" that autism cannot be caused by vaccines?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
There's no such thing as negative proof. It goes the other way. If vaccinations cause autism, then kids who don't have vaccinations, will have a lower incidence of autism. The people claiming a cause need to find a statistical correlation, even if they don't know the mechanism for it. This[^] gives a summary with links.
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:
Simple observation: the sun rises and sets. Scientific observation: the earth rotates.
And, both are true. So what?
Quote:
You truly do not know that educated people had accepted that the world was spherical
Sure I do. But not those around Columbus.
Quote:
I don't accept anecdotal evidence as proof either
So, where is the proof that vaccines do not cause brain damage?
Quote:
But they don't.
Maybe English is not your native language. From the CDC site: "But the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.", "vaccines can cause side effects", "the risk of serious harm from the vaccine is extremely small.", "The risk of DTaP vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small." I'll stop there because that is way more evidence than is necessary. No where do they say they can't cause it. They know it can. Yes, it is small chance, but it is still a chance.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
And, both are true. So what?
Simple observation: Geocentricity - i.e., the earth does not rotate.
ryanb31 wrote:
But not those around Columbus.
No. King Ferdinand's advisers turned down Columbus's proposal because they believed Columbus's sources to have underestimated the circumference of the earth (which they had), and hence the distance to India.
ryanb31 wrote:
where is the proof that vaccines do not cause brain damage?
- These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine. - But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. - Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. Those statements indicate that there was, at the time of publication of the Summary, no evidence that vaccines did not cause brain damage. They knew that brain damage had been reported following vaccination. They did not know if brain damage occurred because of vaccination.
ryanb31 wrote:
No where do they say they can't cause it. They know it can.
- These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine. - But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. - Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. Those statements indicate that there was, at the time of publication of the Summary, no evidence that vaccines caused brain damage. They knew that brain damage had been reported following vaccination. They did not know if brain damage occurred because of vaccination. Finally: Your source is merely a summary of what, at the time of publication, was known of the possible effects of various vaccines. It is not a scientific study. Would you care to provide a link to a controlled study showing brain damage due to vaccination? I would prefer a paper describing the mechanism by which the vaccine disrupted the brain. Failing that, a statistically significant correlation of vaccination and brain damage (as with smoking and lung cancer, for example).
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their
-
ryanb31 wrote:
And, both are true. So what?
Simple observation: Geocentricity - i.e., the earth does not rotate.
ryanb31 wrote:
But not those around Columbus.
No. King Ferdinand's advisers turned down Columbus's proposal because they believed Columbus's sources to have underestimated the circumference of the earth (which they had), and hence the distance to India.
ryanb31 wrote:
where is the proof that vaccines do not cause brain damage?
- These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine. - But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. - Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. Those statements indicate that there was, at the time of publication of the Summary, no evidence that vaccines did not cause brain damage. They knew that brain damage had been reported following vaccination. They did not know if brain damage occurred because of vaccination.
ryanb31 wrote:
No where do they say they can't cause it. They know it can.
- These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine. - But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. - Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. Those statements indicate that there was, at the time of publication of the Summary, no evidence that vaccines caused brain damage. They knew that brain damage had been reported following vaccination. They did not know if brain damage occurred because of vaccination. Finally: Your source is merely a summary of what, at the time of publication, was known of the possible effects of various vaccines. It is not a scientific study. Would you care to provide a link to a controlled study showing brain damage due to vaccination? I would prefer a paper describing the mechanism by which the vaccine disrupted the brain. Failing that, a statistically significant correlation of vaccination and brain damage (as with smoking and lung cancer, for example).
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their
Quote:
Your source is merely a summary of what, at the time of publication, was known of the possible effects of various vaccines.
Right, possible effects.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
There's no such thing as negative proof. It goes the other way. If vaccinations cause autism, then kids who don't have vaccinations, will have a lower incidence of autism. The people claiming a cause need to find a statistical correlation, even if they don't know the mechanism for it. This[^] gives a summary with links.
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 can't CATCH autism, nor is there any known mechanism to make it occur post birth. It's a condition of brain development ( there is some thought that it's a form of hyper masculinity ). As such, nothing can cause it.
You say nothing can cause it, that is definitive. Yet, you admit there may be things about it we don't know. So, where is the proof?
Quote:
but the odds of vaccination causing it, are zero. This is a proven fact.
Where is the proof? You use definitive statements but do not show the proof.
Quote:
They won't, simply because it's impossible.
This was in response to my comment about me hoping your children never get a brain disorder from vaccines. Again, you are definitive, even though the CDC admits they can cause brain damage. Where's your proof? This is now 4 times I ask for your proof. Do you have any?
Quote:
If vaccinations cause autism, then kids who don't have vaccinations, will have a lower incidence of autism.
That might be how a 6 year old sees it. First of call, if vaccines CAN cause autism. Secondly vaccines are one of the many ways we introduce chemicals into our bodies so your statement is no where near accurate. It's too simplistic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
you can't CATCH autism, nor is there any known mechanism to make it occur post birth. It's a condition of brain development ( there is some thought that it's a form of hyper masculinity ). As such, nothing can cause it.
You say nothing can cause it, that is definitive. Yet, you admit there may be things about it we don't know. So, where is the proof?
Quote:
but the odds of vaccination causing it, are zero. This is a proven fact.
Where is the proof? You use definitive statements but do not show the proof.
Quote:
They won't, simply because it's impossible.
This was in response to my comment about me hoping your children never get a brain disorder from vaccines. Again, you are definitive, even though the CDC admits they can cause brain damage. Where's your proof? This is now 4 times I ask for your proof. Do you have any?
Quote:
If vaccinations cause autism, then kids who don't have vaccinations, will have a lower incidence of autism.
That might be how a 6 year old sees it. First of call, if vaccines CAN cause autism. Secondly vaccines are one of the many ways we introduce chemicals into our bodies so your statement is no where near accurate. It's too simplistic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
You say nothing can cause it, that is definitive. Yet, you admit there may be things about it we don't know. So, where is the proof?
You always look for negative proof. The fact is, there is no causality known, and it's know what autism is, it's know that it's in how the brain is structured. The brain does not restructure itself. You can't make someone gay any more than you can make them autistic.
ryanb31 wrote:
Where is the proof? You use definitive statements but do not show the proof.
I linked to some of it.
ryanb31 wrote:
This was in response to my comment about me hoping your children never get a brain disorder from vaccines. Again, you are definitive, even though the CDC admits they can cause brain damage
1 - brain damage is not autism 2 - if you look at the link you gave me, it says that there is an accepted possibility of risk, even though the risk is so small that it's impossible to get enough data to say that vaccines are in fact the cause. You're taking science, cherry picking half sentences, and misreading them.
ryanb31 wrote:
This is now 4 times I ask for your proof. Do you have any?
I don't need proof, you do. You're making a claim. I am rejecting it for lack of proof.
ryanb31 wrote:
That might be how a 6 year old sees it
This is the bit that blows my mind. How can you claim that autism is CAUSED by vaccinations, but not see that if this is true, then vaccinated kids MUST have more autism ? If long term alcohol use causes memory loss, then the proof is that long term drinkers have more memory loss. If they don't, then why not, if alcohol should be causing it ? That's just basic common sense, which is why, as you say, even a 6 year old can see it.
ryanb31 wrote:
First of call, if vaccines CAN cause autism.
Wrong. Proven wrong, time and again. The person who claimed it, was a liar, trying to sell his own vaccine. He didn't claim that any vaccine could cause it, but a certain one that he wanted out of business. Read the link I sent.
ryanb31 wrote:
Secondly vaccines are one of the many ways we introduce chemicals into our bodies so your statemen
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You say nothing can cause it, that is definitive. Yet, you admit there may be things about it we don't know. So, where is the proof?
You always look for negative proof. The fact is, there is no causality known, and it's know what autism is, it's know that it's in how the brain is structured. The brain does not restructure itself. You can't make someone gay any more than you can make them autistic.
ryanb31 wrote:
Where is the proof? You use definitive statements but do not show the proof.
I linked to some of it.
ryanb31 wrote:
This was in response to my comment about me hoping your children never get a brain disorder from vaccines. Again, you are definitive, even though the CDC admits they can cause brain damage
1 - brain damage is not autism 2 - if you look at the link you gave me, it says that there is an accepted possibility of risk, even though the risk is so small that it's impossible to get enough data to say that vaccines are in fact the cause. You're taking science, cherry picking half sentences, and misreading them.
ryanb31 wrote:
This is now 4 times I ask for your proof. Do you have any?
I don't need proof, you do. You're making a claim. I am rejecting it for lack of proof.
ryanb31 wrote:
That might be how a 6 year old sees it
This is the bit that blows my mind. How can you claim that autism is CAUSED by vaccinations, but not see that if this is true, then vaccinated kids MUST have more autism ? If long term alcohol use causes memory loss, then the proof is that long term drinkers have more memory loss. If they don't, then why not, if alcohol should be causing it ? That's just basic common sense, which is why, as you say, even a 6 year old can see it.
ryanb31 wrote:
First of call, if vaccines CAN cause autism.
Wrong. Proven wrong, time and again. The person who claimed it, was a liar, trying to sell his own vaccine. He didn't claim that any vaccine could cause it, but a certain one that he wanted out of business. Read the link I sent.
ryanb31 wrote:
Secondly vaccines are one of the many ways we introduce chemicals into our bodies so your statemen
Quote:
You always look for negative proof.
You made the claim. I'm just asking you for proof. Are you not used to people asking you to back up your claims?
Quote:
I linked to some of it.
That was not proof. The link was about one specific type of vaccine and one specific type of brain disorder. Is that all the "proof" you have?
Quote:
I don't need proof, you do. You're making a claim. I am rejecting it for lack of proof.
I just gave you 3 of YOUR quotes where you made claims and so I ask for proof, and yet here I am, still waiting for it.
Quote:
If long term alcohol use causes memory loss, then the proof is that long term drinkers have more memory loss. If they don't, then why not, if alcohol should be causing it ?
Because there are an infinite number of other things that can cause memory loss. As an example, if there are 100 things that can cause memory loss, long term drinking one of them, and for whatever reason drinkers tend to only participate in 10 of the 100 items yet non-drinkers, for whatever reason, on average participate in 20 of the 100 items the non-drinkers will have a higher incidence. This is just an example but you keep speaking in definitives that are incorrect. So, keep it simple. I ask you what proof is there that vaccines cannot cause brain damage and all you have is "negative proof." If that is the case, I got some miracle liquid I want to sell you because no one has proved it is bad yet. You'll buy, right?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
You always look for negative proof.
You made the claim. I'm just asking you for proof. Are you not used to people asking you to back up your claims?
Quote:
I linked to some of it.
That was not proof. The link was about one specific type of vaccine and one specific type of brain disorder. Is that all the "proof" you have?
Quote:
I don't need proof, you do. You're making a claim. I am rejecting it for lack of proof.
I just gave you 3 of YOUR quotes where you made claims and so I ask for proof, and yet here I am, still waiting for it.
Quote:
If long term alcohol use causes memory loss, then the proof is that long term drinkers have more memory loss. If they don't, then why not, if alcohol should be causing it ?
Because there are an infinite number of other things that can cause memory loss. As an example, if there are 100 things that can cause memory loss, long term drinking one of them, and for whatever reason drinkers tend to only participate in 10 of the 100 items yet non-drinkers, for whatever reason, on average participate in 20 of the 100 items the non-drinkers will have a higher incidence. This is just an example but you keep speaking in definitives that are incorrect. So, keep it simple. I ask you what proof is there that vaccines cannot cause brain damage and all you have is "negative proof." If that is the case, I got some miracle liquid I want to sell you because no one has proved it is bad yet. You'll buy, right?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
You made the claim. I'm just asking you for proof. Are you not used to people asking you to back up your claims?
You're the one making claims. I am refuting them. I provided a link to back up my claim that your claim is bogus, but the onus of proof is on you. You claim xxx. I say it's not proven. You fail to offer proof. I don't need to disprove your claim, you need to prove it.
ryanb31 wrote:
That was not proof. The link was about one specific type of vaccine and one specific type of brain disorder. Is that all the "proof" you have?
Again, there's a tiny bit of evidence that some vaccinations might be implicated in some brain damage. You blow this fact out of all proportion, then tell me I need to prove you are wrong, when you can't prove you are right.
ryanb31 wrote:
I just gave you 3 of YOUR quotes where you made claims and so I ask for proof, and yet here I am, still waiting for it.
I am confused. Are you really a programmer ? You're showing a complete lack of understanding of logic. Your claim, your onus for proof.
ryanb31 wrote:
Because there are an infinite number of other things that can cause memory loss. As an example, if there are 100 things that can cause memory loss, long term drinking one of them, and for whatever reason drinkers tend to only participate in 10 of the 100 items yet non-drinkers, for whatever reason, on average participate in 20 of the 100 items the non-drinkers will have a higher incidence. This is just an example but you keep speaking in definitives that are incorrect.
This is not an example, it's vague waffle. This is why a large sample is needed, and the lack of a large sample ( because of the rarity of brain damage ) is the reason the claim for brain damage caused by vaccinations is so vague. A large sample will normalise for other potential differences.
ryanb31 wrote:
I ask you what proof is there that vaccines cannot cause brain damage
By your standards, my kids have been vaccinated and have no brain damage. That is as much proof as your claim based on observation and assumption.
ryanb31 wrote:
If that is the case, I got some miracle liquid I want to sell you because no one has proved
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You made the claim. I'm just asking you for proof. Are you not used to people asking you to back up your claims?
You're the one making claims. I am refuting them. I provided a link to back up my claim that your claim is bogus, but the onus of proof is on you. You claim xxx. I say it's not proven. You fail to offer proof. I don't need to disprove your claim, you need to prove it.
ryanb31 wrote:
That was not proof. The link was about one specific type of vaccine and one specific type of brain disorder. Is that all the "proof" you have?
Again, there's a tiny bit of evidence that some vaccinations might be implicated in some brain damage. You blow this fact out of all proportion, then tell me I need to prove you are wrong, when you can't prove you are right.
ryanb31 wrote:
I just gave you 3 of YOUR quotes where you made claims and so I ask for proof, and yet here I am, still waiting for it.
I am confused. Are you really a programmer ? You're showing a complete lack of understanding of logic. Your claim, your onus for proof.
ryanb31 wrote:
Because there are an infinite number of other things that can cause memory loss. As an example, if there are 100 things that can cause memory loss, long term drinking one of them, and for whatever reason drinkers tend to only participate in 10 of the 100 items yet non-drinkers, for whatever reason, on average participate in 20 of the 100 items the non-drinkers will have a higher incidence. This is just an example but you keep speaking in definitives that are incorrect.
This is not an example, it's vague waffle. This is why a large sample is needed, and the lack of a large sample ( because of the rarity of brain damage ) is the reason the claim for brain damage caused by vaccinations is so vague. A large sample will normalise for other potential differences.
ryanb31 wrote:
I ask you what proof is there that vaccines cannot cause brain damage
By your standards, my kids have been vaccinated and have no brain damage. That is as much proof as your claim based on observation and assumption.
ryanb31 wrote:
If that is the case, I got some miracle liquid I want to sell you because no one has proved
Quote:
the onus of proof is on you.
I have seen it happen. The CDC says it can happen. You deny that as being proof.
Quote:
By your standards, my kids have been vaccinated and have no brain damage.
Lame. I never said every kid would develop it. Serious? Do you know what logic is? So, you say that me asking you for proof that vaccinations are safe is a negative proof and the onus is on me? How stupid is that? If I told you to smoke cotton so that your kids won't get sick wouldn't you want proof? That's all I am asking. You say vaccines will keep your kids from getting sick and cannot cause brain damage. But where is the proof? Onus schmonus. You have none. I have asked now 5 times and you still refuse.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
the onus of proof is on you.
I have seen it happen. The CDC says it can happen. You deny that as being proof.
Quote:
By your standards, my kids have been vaccinated and have no brain damage.
Lame. I never said every kid would develop it. Serious? Do you know what logic is? So, you say that me asking you for proof that vaccinations are safe is a negative proof and the onus is on me? How stupid is that? If I told you to smoke cotton so that your kids won't get sick wouldn't you want proof? That's all I am asking. You say vaccines will keep your kids from getting sick and cannot cause brain damage. But where is the proof? Onus schmonus. You have none. I have asked now 5 times and you still refuse.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
The CDC says it can happen. You deny that as being proof.
The CDC says it's possible for brain damage, but the incidence is so low, there's no way to know for sure. You keep dodging this fact, and the fact that autism is not brain damage.
ryanb31 wrote:
Lame. I never said every kid would develop it. Serious? Do you know what logic is?
But you have one standard for me, and one for you. You know an autistic child that was vaccinated, therefore vaccination caused it, is the same as the logic I presented.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you say that me asking you for proof that vaccinations are safe is a negative proof and the onus is on me?
Vaccinations are safe because there is no mechanism by which it is reasonable to suggest they are not, and there's no data to suggest that vaccinations are a significant cause of illness, temporary or permanent, compared to the very real and very clear benefit they offer. This is proven. You claim otherwise, in the face of evidence, and so yes, the onus is on you to prove your claim.
ryanb31 wrote:
You say vaccines will keep your kids from getting sick and cannot cause brain damage. But where is the proof? Onus schmonus. You have none. I have asked now 5 times and you still refuse.
The proof is in the simple fact that there is no observable correlation between ANY form of brain damage and vaccinations. Even the CDC website says that.
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.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
The CDC says it can happen. You deny that as being proof.
The CDC says it's possible for brain damage, but the incidence is so low, there's no way to know for sure. You keep dodging this fact, and the fact that autism is not brain damage.
ryanb31 wrote:
Lame. I never said every kid would develop it. Serious? Do you know what logic is?
But you have one standard for me, and one for you. You know an autistic child that was vaccinated, therefore vaccination caused it, is the same as the logic I presented.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you say that me asking you for proof that vaccinations are safe is a negative proof and the onus is on me?
Vaccinations are safe because there is no mechanism by which it is reasonable to suggest they are not, and there's no data to suggest that vaccinations are a significant cause of illness, temporary or permanent, compared to the very real and very clear benefit they offer. This is proven. You claim otherwise, in the face of evidence, and so yes, the onus is on you to prove your claim.
ryanb31 wrote:
You say vaccines will keep your kids from getting sick and cannot cause brain damage. But where is the proof? Onus schmonus. You have none. I have asked now 5 times and you still refuse.
The proof is in the simple fact that there is no observable correlation between ANY form of brain damage and vaccinations. Even the CDC website says that.
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:
The proof is in the simple fact that there is no observable correlation between ANY form of brain damage and vaccinations. Even the CDC website says that.
That's not proof. You also can't understand clear English. You twist it to fit your beliefs. So, last time, do you have any actual proof? Any scientific proof? Just be a man and say no, and quit the back and forth wordsmithing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Your source is merely a summary of what, at the time of publication, was known of the possible effects of various vaccines.
Right, possible effects.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Right, possible effects.
Right, possible effects. For example: My oldest children had measles and, later, mumps vaccinations - no side effects. My youngest was just in time for the dreaded MMR - no side effects. This shows the CDC list to be only possible effects, not inevitable. Now the possible effects of measles in children (CDC again): Ear Infections 10% of cases; Diarrhea 8% of cases; Pneumonia 5% of cases; Death between 1 and 2 in every 1,000 cases; Encephalitis 1 in every 1,000 cases. An additional possible effect of measles contracted during childhood: Brain Damage (SSPE - a fatal degenerative disease, generally appears 7 to 10 years after infection) - 18 in every 100,000 cases when infected before 12 months old; - 1.1 in every 100,000 cases when infected after 5 years old. The Missus and I (unvaccinated) had measles in early childhood, but suffered none of the above. This shows the above CDC list to be only possible effects, not inevitable.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
Quote:
The proof is in the simple fact that there is no observable correlation between ANY form of brain damage and vaccinations. Even the CDC website says that.
That's not proof. You also can't understand clear English. You twist it to fit your beliefs. So, last time, do you have any actual proof? Any scientific proof? Just be a man and say no, and quit the back and forth wordsmithing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
So wait - you're saying that there is no proof either way, so we should assume the worst and do nothing to protect our kids from infections ? The CDC website speaks to the amount of proof that exists today, which is a vague suggestion that cannot be verified. As such, the proof I can offer is that it's not possible to prove that the danger you claim to exist, exists. All you have is a tin foil hat.
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.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Right, possible effects.
Right, possible effects. For example: My oldest children had measles and, later, mumps vaccinations - no side effects. My youngest was just in time for the dreaded MMR - no side effects. This shows the CDC list to be only possible effects, not inevitable. Now the possible effects of measles in children (CDC again): Ear Infections 10% of cases; Diarrhea 8% of cases; Pneumonia 5% of cases; Death between 1 and 2 in every 1,000 cases; Encephalitis 1 in every 1,000 cases. An additional possible effect of measles contracted during childhood: Brain Damage (SSPE - a fatal degenerative disease, generally appears 7 to 10 years after infection) - 18 in every 100,000 cases when infected before 12 months old; - 1.1 in every 100,000 cases when infected after 5 years old. The Missus and I (unvaccinated) had measles in early childhood, but suffered none of the above. This shows the above CDC list to be only possible effects, not inevitable.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
So wait - you're saying that there is no proof either way, so we should assume the worst and do nothing to protect our kids from infections ? The CDC website speaks to the amount of proof that exists today, which is a vague suggestion that cannot be verified. As such, the proof I can offer is that it's not possible to prove that the danger you claim to exist, exists. All you have is a tin foil hat.
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:
the proof I can offer is that it's not possible to prove that the danger you claim to exist, exists.
Precisely. It's about time you admit that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
There's nothing to admit. There is lots of proof that vaccinations help people. There have been attempts to prove that they have risks. The CDC site that you love to quote, plainly states that any risk is so small, it cannot be proven. So, there's no proof that they cause harm, which is therefore proof that there is no known reason to believe that they do harm that outweighs the good they do. Therefore, only someone who ignores the evidence, would not vaccinate. There is no case of vaccination causing brain damage, definitively. No sane person would even suggest that a vaccination could cause autism.
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:
possible effects, not inevitable.
Exactly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Good, glad you are following me. So, let us address the aspect of Brain Damage:
**Children affected** After catching measles Following MMR vaccinationEncephalitis: 1 in every 1,000 cases Less than 1 in every million
**SSPE: ** 1.1 in every 100,000 cases None.Which presents the greater risk of brain damage?
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
Good, glad you are following me. So, let us address the aspect of Brain Damage:
**Children affected** After catching measles Following MMR vaccinationEncephalitis: 1 in every 1,000 cases Less than 1 in every million
**SSPE: ** 1.1 in every 100,000 cases None.Which presents the greater risk of brain damage?
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
Quote:
Which presents the greater risk of brain damage?
The debate has never been about which risk is greater. Several people, including the OP, have stated that vaccines cannot cause brain damage. I said they could.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Which presents the greater risk of brain damage?
The debate has never been about which risk is greater. Several people, including the OP, have stated that vaccines cannot cause brain damage. I said they could.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Several people, including the OP, have stated that vaccines cannot cause brain damage.
Well, I certainly am not about to trawl through this post again, but I am pretty sure that CG said that there was no chance that vaccination caused autism. I don't recall any claims that they do not cause brain damage because, rarely, they do - and this is acknowledged by Health Authorities. Since autism is identified solely from observed behaviours - there is no biological test - diagnosis is subjective. Not a sound basis for scientific analyses.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Several people, including the OP, have stated that vaccines cannot cause brain damage.
Well, I certainly am not about to trawl through this post again, but I am pretty sure that CG said that there was no chance that vaccination caused autism. I don't recall any claims that they do not cause brain damage because, rarely, they do - and this is acknowledged by Health Authorities. Since autism is identified solely from observed behaviours - there is no biological test - diagnosis is subjective. Not a sound basis for scientific analyses.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
Quote:
pretty sure that CG said that there was no chance that vaccination caused autism.
He claimed both. He said it has been proven that autism cannot be caused by vaccinations and he also said brain damage cannot be. However, when I asked for proof he had none. So far, I have not seen any proof that they cannot cause autism.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.