Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: It seems to me wildly improbable that there should exist some conspiracy involving medical researchers in so many different places, pubishing in so many different journals, to fake epedemilogical evidence to debunk the claim that MMR vaccinations are associated with autism. On the balance of probabilities, which do you think more likely -- that there exist an association between MMR vaccine and autism but there also exists a huge (and largely successful) conspiracy to conceal it, or that no such association or conspiracy exist? Likely and not likely are for when you don't have any hard facts. This is not the case, hence all conclusions about what is likely or not are completely irrelevant. Oh, and there is not all these different things all over from all these doctors and scientist, proving that vaccines have no causation to autism. There are actually just a handful, which are repeated over and over and over. You will still see the MMR study(which only has a flaw, and does not make the denier case) used on news broadcast today. Even here, has any1 cited any other study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: It seems to me wildly improbable that there should exist some conspiracy involving medical researchers in so many different places, pubishing in so many different journals, to fake epedemilogical evidence to debunk the claim that MMR vaccinations are associated with autism. On the balance of probabilities, which do you think more likely -- that there exist an association between MMR vaccine and autism but there also exists a huge (and largely successful) conspiracy to conceal it, or that no such association or conspiracy exist? Likely and not likely are for when you don't have any hard facts. This is not the case, hence all conclusions about what is likely or not are completely irrelevant. No. What I am seeing are interpretations of the available evidence. The available evidence of epidemiological studies appears to suggest there is no association between the MMR vaccine and autism. One interpretation of that is that there is actually a connection but there's also a massive conspiracy to hush it up. Another interpretation is, of course, that neither the connection nor the conspiracy exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Why do you continue to bring up the MMR study? Don't you know of any beside that? It doesn't even make a case for no causation. The denier use it to show that the there was a flaw that the doctor missed. Here is the same doctor that I posted earlier on Robert Kennedy Jr's radio show from last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: Why do you continue to bring up the MMR study? Don't you know of any beside that? It doesn't even make a case for no causation. The denier use it to show that the there was a flaw that the doctor missed. I keep on bringing it up because you said, right at the outset, that For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I. I provided you with a reference to a BMJ article that describes how, on the contrary, claims that at least one vaccine, that for MMR, cause autism have been well and truly debunked, and provides plenty of references to back that up. They have been debunked, say the BMJ, not because "there was a flaw that the doctor missed" but because No one has been able to reproduce his results And this, it transpires, is because he faked them in the first place. Perhaps you should revise your initial assertion to read something like For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked, apart, that is, from the MMR vaccine, where claims it causes autism have been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out, apart from the MMR vaccine, where all credible science says there isn't any discernible link. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Why do you continue to bring up the MMR study? Don't you know of any beside that? It doesn't even make a case for no causation. The denier use it to show that the there was a flaw that the doctor missed. I keep on bringing it up because you said, right at the outset, that For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I. I provided you with a reference to a BMJ article that describes how, on the contrary, claims that at least one vaccine, that for MMR, cause autism have been well and truly debunked, and provides plenty of references to back that up. They have been debunked, say the BMJ, not because "there was a flaw that the doctor missed" but because No one has been able to reproduce his results And this, it transpires, is because he faked them in the first place. Perhaps you should revise your initial assertion to read something like For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked, apart, that is, from the MMR vaccine, where claims it causes autism have been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out, apart from the MMR vaccine, where all credible science says there isn't any discernible link. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I. The keyword is "claims", which I reply, "This is a complete lie". The credible scientists I'm referring to say that because the study was found to have a flaw, which those scientists claim no link because they say Dr Whatefield was fiddling with data to prove his hypothesis. No part of the study could be interpretted as proving no causation to thimerisol. He wasn't even testing for that kind of causation to thimerisol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 So are you, in fact, making no particular claims about vaccines in general, but only about those that contain thimerisol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterCanessa Oh Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Well done again, but I think you're missing the points I'm making, which are about logic and debate, not about vaccines good or bad. OK - so you ARE saying it's injections that are bad. Crucially though I still can't understand whether you are objecting to the preservative used or all injections. I most emphatically DO NOT accept that a anyone owns anyone else and I certainly said no such thing. I said that some people are put in a position where they have to make moral decisions. Moreover, by your argument, we would now have to brand you as guilty of crimes against humanity, as you have made that vaccinate/don't vaccinate decision and continue to force your unscientific coriander on your child (I joking, to make the point). Since I doubt that's what you mean I have no idea what you DO mean. "YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY[ONE] IS AUTISTIC" - thank you. A solid statement, at last. So for you to say "x has been shown to be a statistically likely cause of autism" and for us to say "nonsense, all cases of autism are caused by orbiting teapots" only requires us to have different definitions of 'autism'. Perhaps the 'worldwide conspiracy' was a bit more than you're saying. Here are all the options: A parent is not involved in bio-chemistry or medicine and has not conducted research or read the literature in the area. They are merely ignorant, as most of us are. A chemist, doctor, biologist or (appropriately-tasked) politician who has not conducted research or read the literature is, if they then say or decide anything in the area, not ignorant but negligent (possibly criminally so, even under present laws). Discounting those who are negligent we shall assume chemists, doctors, biologists and politicians are informed. If the informed have not used their critical faculties, expert knowledge and experience and have accepted bad science then they are bad scientists. I think this is the group that you now, rather more kindly than they deserve, call 'misinformed'. Uninformed, no responsibility, no opinion = ignorant Uninformed with responsibility or opinion = negligent Misinformed with responsibility or opinion = bad scientist Informed and disagree with Medhue = liar Informed and agree with Medhue = credible As it happens I don't think that's what you're saying either. I think you're saying that even those in a position to know and with a responsibility to know are still more or less UNABLE to know due to their educational, professional and cultural background. It is certainly true that "accepted" science has often been wrong even when honest - phlogiston in physics, galen in medicine - and that it has taken a long time (and killed quite a few people in medicine's case) being "the establishment" has accepted the new paradigm. Funny things like, ooh, the circulation of the blood, the heart not being the seat of the soul, bloodletting not generally being a good idea, etc. Taking a stand against received wisdom is indeed difficult and likely to be ridiculed. Sorry, but that does not put the burden of proof on "prove it isn't possible". If you're going to overthrow it is for you to show why "it isn't just possible but it is MORE probable" and unfortunately for you it has to be more probable given the whole structure and content of science, not just the bit you want to change. [However, I'm trying to post on the logic and structure of debate, rhetoric and fallacies. This starts to wander into philosophy of science, which isn't really my area.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Taking a stand against received wisdom is indeed difficult and likely to be ridiculed. Indeed, and that does sometimes spring from irrational thought. Irrationality is natural and not without benefit. Just as mutation is a fundamental component of biological evolution, irrational thinking seems to be an important part of our technological evolution. I'm sure my analogy is imperfect, but selection may be to mutation as science is to "crazy" thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 PeterCanessa Oh wrote: OK - so you ARE saying it's injections that are bad. Crucially though I still can't understand whether you are objecting to the preservative used or all injections. Yes, that is what I'm saying. Injections go directly into your bloodstream, which is a direct path to your brain, unless blocked by your blood/brain barrier. Injections might be necessary for some procedures, but they are not necessary for immunizing. To me, this is logical. Why would you take the extra risk? But medical personal are very comfortable with injecting things directly into your bloodstream, whether it needs to be or not done that way. Besides the fact that not every vial is tested before they jab you. There have been numerous bad batches of vaccines sent out, and thankfully caught be competent lab techs that do their job. Let's hope your clinic or hospital checks theirs so religiously. The topic of how to think about people in the medical profession that still deny, that is a hard 1. Honestly, they trust in the system, I'm sure they had to have some intelligence to get where they are. Look around you tho, when have the ever heard anything really about this on the news, besides, "these parents are crazy and there is no link". Has there ever been a TV show that made the link? At the height of the Autism reporting, there was an ER episode that flat out had a scene where a crazy parent thought the doctor hurt their child with a vaccination. Of course, just as you would expect, the ER doctors said the same thing every news station has been saying. And who buys the most commericials on TV, you guessed it, big pharma. Why do you think there is an emmy winning Hospital show for evey generation that ever watched TV? At the height of the swine flu, Thirty Rock had a flu vaccine episode. Come on now! People here in the states, they don't even consider that the TV programs could be like 3rd world countries where the government basically tells people how to think using TV. Or even like China, where they can wipe away events like the uprising in the square, that we all saw on TV. The reality is, everything on TV is about keeping you in the dark, and molding your brain and how you think about every issue. Heck most americans think that the government never lies or any cover up stuff is just a conspiracy. The TV told them, over and over and over. I look around and see individuals with potential all around me, but they are stuck in these lies, and controlled by them. People don't think they live in a cage or that they are slaves. It's because all the evidence for that has been blurred by language. You're an employee, not a slave. You get to live in your own house that the city really owns but you will pay for the joy of keeping it up. The reality is, we don't even need a government. All the money we give to them could be spent right in our own cities, paying for our own stuff, not blown on bankrupt companies that drain our money and serve no useful purpose. Do you fear invasion from some other nation? Oh Please! Americans are the most arm group of people the world has ever seen. American solders can't even hold Iraq without massive problems. How would any nation control a bunch of americans. I say, "Wake Up World". Governements attract corruption. You know exactly who to pay off. I think It's time for a new paradyme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Taking a stand against received wisdom is indeed difficult and likely to be ridiculed. Indeed, and that does sometimes spring from irrational thought. Irrationality is natural and not without benefit. Just as mutation is a fundamental component of biological evolution, irrational thinking seems to be an important part of our technological evolution. I'm sure my analogy is imperfect, but selection may be to mutation as science is to "crazy" thinking. Yep, I'm crazy using logic to stray people from their homes into my alien spaceship. This is what we pleadians call assention. ROFL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: It really is sad how little people care about themselves, their children, or any1 else in their family that they can't pull themselves away from a football game or a Lifetime drama to watch a couple hours of relevant videos that actually have something to do with their life. Medhu, I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is. But, I do know when a full-scale ad hominem attack is being made. That's what you're doing. Medhue Simoni wrote:. Me, I've been studying autism for over 18 years, obsessively. Yet, you have failed to grasp the science. Have you had college level science courses? I don't mean have you read articles on your own for the past 18 years...but have you actually completed college level courses in biology, microbiology, chemistry, and genetics? Because, you are displaying a lack of science knowledge. Medhue Simoni wrote: In the end, it really doesn't matter what you want to believe. The truth is the truth. By exposing the truth to some1, you open a door. From then on, that door will always be there. They may choose to close that door, but it will always be there. Eventually, they will recieve little bits of information that keeps making that door relevant, until the day that the door opens itself, and there is no more denying it. So, if all I did was point at the door again, that is fine with me. Believe whatever you want to believe, but you will never get rid of that door in your mind, until you open it and accept the facts. Oh, the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: Injections go directly into your bloodstream, which is a direct path to your brain, unless blocked by your blood/brain barrier. Unless they're intramuscular injections, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Oh, correction. Sorry, I read that wrong, lol. Yes, I was emotional in the statement. Now you can again, discount everything I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterCanessa Oh Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: The reality is, we don't even need a government. Ahhh, the world has so much to thank Belgium for (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16042750). The best pub in the world is there too (or was, I haven't been for something like 10 years). The old steamer, Zeebrugge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is. Nor do I. I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is. Nor do I. I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall. ;-) Nor I, neither. It's a conspiracy of non-TV owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is. Nor do I. I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall. ;-) You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response. I'm still confused. Is your objection to thiomersal in particular or to vaccines in general? You will of course be aware, because of the keen interest you say you take in this subject, that thiomersal isn't used in vaccines in the UK (other than, I think, for influenza) and hasn't been for several years, and I understand the same is true of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response. I'm still confused. Is your objection to thiomersal in particular or to vaccines in general? You will of course be aware, because of the keen interest you say you take in this subject, that thiomersal isn't used in vaccines in the UK (other than, I think, for influenza) and hasn't been for several years, and I understand the same is true of the USA. You just showed us that you didn't watch the videos. And, I've already explained that I'm not against immunization. It can be done in a safe way. I am against injections for vaccines, especially with Thimerisol, on babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I'm not interested in videos. I'm interested in what you have to say. Now, since there is no danger of a child in the USA or the UK being vaccinated with anything using Thimersol as a preservative (unless, possibly, for flu) and there hasn't been for several years, two questions. First, given the keen interest you take in the subject, are you aware of any fall in the reported rate of autism since the use of Thimersol has been pretty much discontinued for vaccines for children? Second, what's your objection to vaccines that don't contain Thimersol? Your objection -- not what someone said a few years ago on YouTube or a radio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: And, I've already explained that I'm not against immunization. It can be done in a safe way. I am against injections for vaccines, especially with Thimerisol, on babies. First, most common childhood immunizations never contained Thimerosal or mercury. Scroll down to see table one: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm Second, autism has risen, even though vaccines are without Thimerosal. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20080116autismstudy.html Third, I urge you to listen to the podcast located here: http://www.world-science.org/podcast/seth-mnookin-panic-virus-autism-psychology-fear-medicine-disease/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: And, I've already explained that I'm not against immunization. It can be done in a safe way. I am against injections for vaccines, especially with Thimerisol, on babies. First, most common childhood immunizations never contained Thimerosal or mercury. Scroll down to see table one: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm Second, autism has risen, even though vaccines are without Thimerosal. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20080116autismstudy.html Third, I urge you to listen to the podcast located here: http://www.world-science.org/podcast/seth-mnookin-panic-virus-autism-psychology-fear-medicine-disease/ You are late to the game. Much of this has been covered. The first link, Says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Thanks for telling me to look at the charts, cause it totally says the opposite of what you say. Plus, a good amount of the vaccines that are on the list are new versions, which it shows the release date. This does not mean the old versions didn't have Thimerisol. Why don't they post the old vaccines? This is all also contradicted by your 2nd link, which eccentially says that it's down to trace amounts, which is not the same as removal. 2nd link is based on the premise that mercury was removed, which it disproves itself by stating elsewhere that there were trace amounts, and is also flawed by the non testable aspect of the diagnoses. Also, look at this, which I pulled directly from the study "The DDS administers a statewide system of regional centers and developmental centers that serves persons who are substantially disabled because of autism, mental retardation, and other developmentaldisabilities." "An individual needs only 1 qualifying condition to achieve active status; clients with more than 1qualifying condition may be coded under 1 or multiple diagnosticcategories." So, they dumped a ton of kids in that aren't autistic at all, and call this a valid study about the link to autism. Notice how they refuse to do a study with totally non vaccinated children, to see how many are autistic. You'd think, if they are right, this would prove every part of their theory, without a doubt. Oh, that's right, independent tests have already been done on Amish communities. In this study, there were 3-4 autistics found, all of which were vaccinated. No children with autism that were not vaccinated. That's in 2 of the videos I posted. 3rd link is a video about the MMR study, and has no relevance to thimerisol. Strike 1!!!! Try Again. Actually strike 3 but who's counting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 My reading of this table -- http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1 -- is that most vaccines given to children never contained any Thimersol in the first place. Not that they used to contain it but it was later removed. The table clearly distinguishes between vaccines that never contained Thimerisol, those that used to contain it but have since been reformulated, and those that contain a trace of it. How do you interpret it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Wrong again. LOOk at the table once more. You see those dates? Those are telling you this is a new version of the vaccine. Why don't they list the 1 before the date? Plus, table 1 and table 3 contradict each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: And, I've already explained that I'm not against immunization. It can be done in a safe way. I am against injections for vaccines, especially with Thimerisol, on babies. First, most common childhood immunizations never contained Thimerosal or mercury. Scroll down to see table one: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm Second, autism has risen, even though vaccines are without Thimerosal. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20080116autismstudy.html Third, I urge you to listen to the podcast located here: http://www.world-science.org/podcast/seth-mnookin-panic-virus-autism-psychology-fear-medicine-disease/ You are late to the game. Much of this has been covered. The first link, I'm guessing, you think proves that Thimerisol has been removed. This is true, only for brand new vaccines that aren't stocked at the hospital or clinic and not even all those. At the hospital, you have to ask for the mercury free vaccine, or they will give you the old 1. It also specifically states childhood vaccines. This is all also contradicted by your 2nd link, which eccentially says that it's down to trace amounts, which is not the same as removal. 2nd link is based on the premise that mercury was removed, which it disproves itself by stating elsewhere that there were trace amounts, and is also flawed by the non testable aspect of the diagnoses. Also, look at this, which I pulled directly from the study "The DDS administers a statewide system of regional centers and developmental centers that serves persons who are substantially disabled because of autism, mental retardation, and other developmentaldisabilities." "An individual needs only 1 qualifying condition to achieve active status; clients with more than 1qualifying condition may be coded under 1 or multiple diagnosticcategories." So, they dumped a ton of kids in that aren't autistic at all, and call this a valid study about the link to autism. Notice how they refuse to do a study with totally non vaccinated children, to see how many are autistic. You'd think, if they are right, this would prove every part of their theory, without a doubt. Oh, that's right, independent tests have already been done on Amish communities. In this study, there were 3-4 autistics found, all of which were vaccinated. No children with autism that were not vaccinated. That's in 2 of the videos I posted. 3rd link is a video about the MMR study, and has no relevance to thimerisol. Strike 1!!!! Try Again. Actually strike 3 but who's counting Why, thank you Medhu. I do believe you have, once again, shown your understanding of the subject. For those who might be reading this thread...and can actually understand science, here are some additional links: http://www.amazon.com/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/autisms-false-prophets-revealed/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism-treatment/AN01488 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now