Vaccinations
-
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.
-
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.
ryanb31 wrote:
He claimed both.
As I said, I am not trawling through these rambling threads. He did say that he wanted a study that showed (robustly, reliably, and reproducibly, I would add) that children who had vaccinations were more likely to be autistic than those who did not. Also, that if no such study existed, there was no evidence that vaccinations cause autism.
ryanb31 wrote:
So far, I have not seen any proof that they cannot cause autism.
But there is plenty of evidence that they do not cause autism.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
ryanb31 wrote:
He claimed both.
As I said, I am not trawling through these rambling threads. He did say that he wanted a study that showed (robustly, reliably, and reproducibly, I would add) that children who had vaccinations were more likely to be autistic than those who did not. Also, that if no such study existed, there was no evidence that vaccinations cause autism.
ryanb31 wrote:
So far, I have not seen any proof that they cannot cause autism.
But there is plenty of evidence that they do not cause autism.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
Quote:
Also, that if no such study existed, there was no evidence that vaccinations cause autism.
That's the only thing that would constitute evidence? Really? As I said before, let's suppose there are 100 things that can cause autism. Just because someone gets a vaccination which is 1 of 100 possible ways to get autism it does not necessarily mean that vaccinated children are more likely to get autism. Let's say that McDonald's food (I use the term food lightly) can cause autism. So if someone who is vaccinated but does not eat McDonald's and someone who does not vaccinate but eats at McDonald's all the time the second may have a much higher incidence rate of autism. You are assuming that vaccinations are the only possible cause of autism and therefore also assuming that vaccinated people will have a higher incidence. Too many assumptions.
Quote:
But there is plenty of evidence that they do not cause autism.
As there is plenty of evidence it CAN cause autism.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Also, that if no such study existed, there was no evidence that vaccinations cause autism.
That's the only thing that would constitute evidence? Really? As I said before, let's suppose there are 100 things that can cause autism. Just because someone gets a vaccination which is 1 of 100 possible ways to get autism it does not necessarily mean that vaccinated children are more likely to get autism. Let's say that McDonald's food (I use the term food lightly) can cause autism. So if someone who is vaccinated but does not eat McDonald's and someone who does not vaccinate but eats at McDonald's all the time the second may have a much higher incidence rate of autism. You are assuming that vaccinations are the only possible cause of autism and therefore also assuming that vaccinated people will have a higher incidence. Too many assumptions.
Quote:
But there is plenty of evidence that they do not cause autism.
As there is plenty of evidence it CAN cause autism.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
You are assuming that vaccinations are the only possible cause of autism
No. Studies of this nature take care to ensure that the vaccinated and non-vaccinated samples are of a similar proportion of age, gender, social class, location, employment, etc. In this way the number of variables is limited to that under investigation. Studies on diet, environment, etc. and autism have (strangely enough) already been undertaken. They, of course, ensured that vaccination was ruled out as a variable within the samples under comparison. Too many assumptions on your part.
ryanb31 wrote:
As there is plenty of evidence it CAN cause autism.
Which you, no doubt, will provide us with - eventually. In the meantime, note how as each 'cause' of autism is removed from the vaccines, the rate of autism is not diminished. Japan stopped using MMR in 1993, thus removing the 'immune system overwhelmed' causation. Autism diminished? No. Ethyl Mercury removed from childhood vaccines. Autism diminished? No. Perhaps it is McDonalds after all - the truth is out there.
**Deaths from Measles - UK**Pre-vaccination MMR
1959 - 1968 1998 - 2007
865 12And 11 of those 12 deaths were from the late effects of Measles acquired in the 1980's and earlier, when we still had Measles epidemics.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp