Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Bram Kaandorp]

Like the 40+ year "look about" for the cause of autism?

Frickin' magnets, how do they work?

Seriously though, what is your issue?

Just because we don't know for certain what the cause IS, that doesn't mean that we don't know what the cause ISN'T.

If I have thoroughly looked through my room for something, and haven't found it, then it probably isn't in my room. The fact that I haven't found the spot where it actually is, doesn't mean that it must still be in my room. In fact, it most likely means the opposite.

Do you comprehend that?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think it's odd that, now that Clayton is back, he isn't as active in this thread any more.

 

[abaddon]

I think it's odd that, now that Clayton is back, he isn't as active in this thread any more.

He can't answer your question that has been pending for a long time.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

He can't answer your question that has been pending for a long time.

Hey, I didn't ask for an explanation. I was just pointing something out.

I also think it's odd that Clayton would ask "tough" questions, but then settle for the easy (satisfying) answers, when we all know that the real answers are usually not satisfying, and not easy either.

For someone who doesn't accept the "official story", he sure does go for the ones that are most often given as alternatives.

Say Clayton, why don't you look for the answers yourself, in stead of repeating other conspiracy theorists.

Here's an idea for you to try: Maybe the conspiracy theories that are most common are actually thought up by the government to keep people from making up even more absurd ones.


Ever thought of that?

On topic though:

Of all the people with autism that I've met, I couldn't say that any of them would be better off dead.

Care to contradict me on that, only to ignore the rest of my post?

 

[000063]

I think it's odd that, now that Clayton is back, he isn't as active in this thread any more.

Standard fringe reset tactics. Make a claim, get spanked, leave the thread and wait a while for the discussion to move on, then come back to it and make the same claim again.

Thing is, I don't think it's actually conscious dishonesty. I think people who use the tactic literally cannot accept when they've been proven wrong. I've seen Clay and others make the same incorrect claims over and over in multiple threads, over several years. Clay keeps making claims in this thread that were disproven in the first few pages. Same with Holocaust deniers.

 

[Clayton Moore]

(NaturalNews) A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6LAQHyU

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6LAQHyU

000063: I see your point.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Guess who got his first two DTaP vaccinations in Vermont?

The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:

While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.

Although the CDC's recommended childhood immunization schedule a) requires infants to receive up to 8 vaccines simultaneously, b) affects millions of infants annually, and c) was never scientifically tested for safety, the CDC had prior knowledge that combining chemical substances, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, "can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures."[2]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6vxfT3L

 

[TheRedWorm]

Hey, I didn't ask for an explanation. I was just pointing something out.

I also think it's odd that Clayton would ask "tough" questions, but then settle for the easy (satisfying) answers, when we all know that the real answers are usually not satisfying, and not easy either.

For someone who doesn't accept the "official story", he sure does go for the ones that are most often given as alternatives.

Say Clayton, why don't you look for the answers yourself, in stead of repeating other conspiracy theorists.

Here's an idea for you to try: Maybe the conspiracy theories that are most common are actually thought up by the government to keep people from making up even more absurd ones.


Ever thought of that?

On topic though:

Of all the people with autism that I've met, I couldn't say that any of them would be better off dead.

Care to contradict me on that, only to ignore the rest of my post?

Looks like he is going to completely ignore your post in it's entirety. Shocking, I know.

 

[000063]

000063: I see your point.

I forgot to mention his other favorite tactic; spamming unrelated links and quotes from them in order to change the subject away from a question he doesn't want to answer, without ever explaining the relevance of said links.

One of those other CTers I mentioned doesn't even bother with that. He just sardonically asks a question about a straw man version of his opposition's claim, or avoids the question altogether, to the extent that he frequently outright deletes questions from his quotes and hopes no one notices. Then when he's called on it, he usually ignores it or, rarely makes up some sort of excuse. In fact, he's actually put me on his ignore list because I kept pointing out when he did this.

 

[332nd]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6vxfT3L

 

[Giordano]

[deleted] Never mind, my post violated my New Years resolution to be a better person.

 

[abaddon]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6LAQHyU

Some choice "Hot Topics" from naturalnews.com:
"Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud - tumors grow faster after chemo!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J8zIlRyA"

"Colloidal silver gaining ground as a proven, effective antibiotic remedy

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J8zSIiyK"

http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6vxfT3L

Links to crank websites do not help your cause, particularly when the study quoted has this in it:

Conflict of Interest Statement Neil Z Miller is associated with the ‘Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute’.

Yup, a crank organisation.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

 

[Matthew Cline]

So they require multiple DTaP jabs but 90% of the confirmed whooping cough cases received multiple DTaP jabs. Doesn't that pretty much mean that the DTaP vaccine doesn't work?

No. Let's say that for disease X, among those who become infected, 79% of the them were vaccinated. Intuitively, it might seem that this means that the vaccine is ineffective. However, that's what you'd get if the vaccine was 80% effective and was used by 95% of the population. The breakdown would be 76% of the population vaccinated and resistant, 19% of the population vaccinated and susceptible, and 5% of the population unvaccinated and susceptible. The susceptible but vaccinated population is almost four times larger than the unvaccinated and susceptible, despite the fact that the vaccine is 80% effective, because the vaccinated population is so much larger than the unvaccinated population.

 

[Giordano]

Some choice "Hot Topics" from naturalnews.com:
"Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud - tumors grow faster after chemo!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J8zIlRyA"

"Colloidal silver gaining ground as a proven, effective antibiotic remedy

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J8zSIiyK"

Links to crank websites do not help your cause, particularly when the study quoted has this in it:
Yup, a crank organisation.

Quoted link doesn't contain the word vaccine, nor do any of the links. What on earth did you post this for?

I find very odd the concept that a "natural" approach to disease is to be favored over science based medicine. Before science based medicine, most people died before their late thirties. Many died in their first year of life. Nature is pretty vicious!

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6vxfT3L

Guess who is citing a crackpot web site that cannot do simple math, Clayton Moore?

Here is a blogger who can do multiplication and division: Back to an old topic: Bad Vaccine Math

The very first Good Math/Bad Math post ever was about an idiotic bit of antivaccine rubbish. I haven't dealt with antivaccine stuff much since then, because the bulk of the antivaccine idiocy has nothing to do with math. But the other day, a reader sent me a really interesting link from what my friend Orac calls a "wretched hive of scum and quackery", naturalnews.com, in which they try to argue that the whooping cough vaccine is an epic failure:
...
So let's just play with those numbers a bit. Assume, for simplicity, than 50% of the people are adults, and 50% children, and assume that all of the children are fully up-to-date on the vaccine. Then you've got 10% of the children (10% of 475), 10% of the adults that are up-to-date (10% of 10% of 475), and 40% of the adults that aren't up-to-date (40% of 90% of 475) is the succeptible population. That works out to 266 succeptible people among the vaccinated, which is 85%: so you'd expect 85% of the actual cases of whooping cough to be among people who'd been vaccinated. Suddenly, the antivaxers case doesn't look so good, does it?

 

[Giordano]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6vxfT3L

Clayton,
Perhaps you overlooked this link in one of my recent posts:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx.

So it appears that the safety of the current vaccine schedule has been tested! That makes nature news.com (choose one) (a) a trustworthy scientific organization or (b) an untrustworthy location from which to get your information?

 

[Giordano]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2J6LAQHyU

Clayton,

Did you actually read the study? It's free on the Internet- you can easily download it. If you do, you will see one glaring problem: the number of hospitalizations for 1 vaccination was greater than for 6, and therefore they decided the single vaccination datum was an outlier that needed to be ignored when performing the rest of their analysis. Somehow that important piece of information was not in the abstract quoted by naturenews.com. Further, due to their database, they had no control for unvaccinated children

If all the data was included in this analysis, it looks to me as if there would be no significant statistical correlation between vaccinations and hospitalizations. Or, if we accept their data at face value, it would be better to get 6 vaccinations at one time rather than 1.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,

Did you actually read the study? It's free on the Internet- you can easily download it. If you do, you will see one glaring problem: the number of hospitalizations for 1 vaccination was greater than for 6, and therefore they decided the single vaccination datum was an outlier that needed to be ignored when performing the rest of their analysis. Somehow that important piece of information was not in the abstract quoted by naturenews.com. Further, due to their database, they had no control for unvaccinated children

If all the data was included in this analysis, it looks to me as if there would be no significant statistical correlation between vaccinations and hospitalizations. Or, if we accept their data at face value, it would be better to get 6 vaccinations at one time rather than 1.

Think about it and you may understand.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Think about it and you may understand.

Speak in meaningless platitudes and you will be ignored.