Vaccines and Autism

[Alpo]

Primarily because they prove nothing, sir.

 

[HoughMade]

I would heartily disagree. If you ignore the straw-man misrepresentations of my arguments, nobody has really even touched them.

That's what I would expect the Black Knight to say.

 

[steveh_131]

I've proved lots of things.

I proved that if there is evidence of vaccine damage, CDC scientists gather around a large garbage can and throw it away.

I proved that anyone who manages to publish such evidence is crucified by the establishment.

I proved that there are multiple confounding variables that call into question any claims that Salk's vaccine 'eradicated' Polio.

I proved that a nice guy struggling with a teenaged autistic child can post an interesting article of an interview of a smart lady, and several members of INGO will do their best to harangue him for daring to question the sanctity of vaccines.

I proved that self-proclaimed 'scientists' have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

Did I prove that vaccines cause autism? Of course I didn't, because I never made that claim.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Again, critical reading and comprehension skills are required.

A lack of confidence that a link will be found is NOT the same thing as having confidence a link will not be found. Having confidence is having a reasonable certainty of something.

If we put this all on a spectrum on the right there would be a "confidence a link will be found", on the left would be a "confidence a link will not be found" and in the middle-ground would be "a lack of confidence that a link will be found" or "a lack of confidence that a link will not be found". One has a reasonable certainty, the other does not have reasonable certainty.

Let me better emphasize my position on the issue to help you better understand the difference. My position is that there may be a link between the two, and certainly this doctor's hypothesis sounds plausible. Unfortunately due to the VERY complex nature of microbiology and cellular genetics it's extremely difficult to adequately control all variables in order to PROVE a link. Therefore I'm not confident that a definitive link will be found, I'm hopeful it will be found (a link to what causes autism, not necessarily a vaccine related link), but not confident. Maybe it's semantics to you, I see a clear difference.

That being said, none of this can change the fact that there could be a link and that we just haven't found it yet. Confidence or lack there-of doesn't change a thing. If we never find a link that also doesn't mean there IS NOT a link, it merely means we can't find the link...

Maybe third time is the charm. I concede the fact that you are indeed right. There is a distinct difference between saying there is no link and saying "i don't think we'll ever find one". I'm the one making the leap in confidence and saying, at this time, the vaccines we have, will not be linked. Is that a giant leap? Of course. But i'm taking it anyway. You find that stupid and that's about where this ends, right?

The point is still valid. A scientist, that had reason to believe things were NOT as the current "general consensus" held based upon scientific reasons was ridiculed and 'exiled' because he went against the grain. The people that ridiculed and exiled him were only using what they knew at present to discredit his scientific theory and/or hypothesis. It wasn't until science and technology advanced further were they proven fools. What makes you believe this isn't a repeat of said events? The general consensus of scientists say there is no link, even if their studies are 100% true they are only using what is known to them TODAY, at present. Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to say, "today's evidence says this, so it must be true and anybody that feels otherwise is a fool"? Certainly you don't believe that we're at the end of discovery and there is nothing left for humans to discover do you?

If the "consensus" is using non-evidence based assertions to "discredit" someone, that's a lot different than people using evidence based facts to refute a scientific claim. I'm not saying we can't be wrong but at least at this present time it's just not because god said so and we use more demonstrable evidence to decide whats junk and what isn't.

 

[Alpo]

Did I prove that vaccines cause autism? Of course I didn't, because I never made that claim.

Exactly. Everything else is chaff. The litany of accusations about "the process" is valid opinion, but not scientific support that vaccines cause autism.

 

[steveh_131]

The litany of accusations about "the process" is valid opinion, but not scientific support that vaccines cause autism.

Good grief. How many times do I have to express that I haven't found any good scientific support for such a claim? That's never been my point throughout the entirety of this thread.

If that's the only point that you're interested in arguing then you are barking up the wrong tree, Alpo.

Haha, do you see what I did there? BARKING? LOL

 

[Alpo]

I don't know, steve. You have a goodly percentage of the posts on this thread and underneath it all, I've been waiting for the evidence that supports the concern of the OP: that vaccines cause autism. 200 posts later, we are in no different position. What was this? A spleen vent?

 

[steveh_131]

I've been waiting for the evidence that supports the concern of the OP: that vaccines cause autism.

'Vaccines cause autism' is not even a correct summary of the article in the OP.

 

[Alpo]

You are just being contrary.

I'm outta here. Again.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not. Did you read the article? She's discussing the use of aborted fetal cell lines, which are used in a small percentage of vaccines. That specific cross section of vaccines would need to be studied with proper control groups. This is not the same old 'vaccines cause autism' discussion. This is new territory.

 

[indiucky]

If that's the only point that you're interested in arguing then you are barking up the wrong tree, Alpo.Haha, do you see what I did there? BARKING? LOL

Careful brother....Sometimes dog puns go awry.....

 

[halfmileharry]

Be careful when you follow the "Masses" for they may lose their "M"

 

[rambone]

I've been waiting for the evidence that supports the concern of the OP: that vaccines cause autism. 200 posts later, we are in no different position.

Evidence that goes against the industry gets thrown away. The CDC purposely "destroyed documents" that showed a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. This is on the floor of the U.S. Congress, yesterday.

"...we would conclude that vaccinating children early with the MMR vaccine could lead to autism..."

[video=youtube;qxr-cv-JuI8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxr-cv-JuI8[/video]

 

[Alpo]

snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

 

[steveh_131]

You need to check your dates. He testified before Congress yesterday. The snopes B.S. was written a year ago and last updated in February. Interestingly, the snopes article first tried to claim that it was all a pack of lies. Then Thompson released his statement publicly not long after the tapes came out, and they were forced to change it to the propaganda that you see today. I was watching it unfold in real-time.

Can you dispute that the destroyed evidence proves that vaccines caused autism? Sure.

Can you dispute that these CDC researchers thought that it demonstrated that vaccines cause autism, and purposely threw it in a garbage can and altered their report accordingly?

No. That is not in dispute.

Let me repeat: CDC researchers found evidence that they believed showed a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism and purposely destroyed it. This is not in dispute.

 

[BugI02]

Galileo was forced to recant his position as well, did that make his assertions any less true or credible? At the time he was considered a fool, fast forward a couple hundred years and all of the sudden he was a genius ahead of his time. Do you not see the potential correlation?


Again, critical reading and comprehension skills are required.

A lack of confidence that a link will be found is NOT the same thing as having confidence a link will not be found. Having confidence is having a reasonable certainty of something.

If we put this all on a spectrum on the right there would be a "confidence a link will be found", on the left would be a "confidence a link will not be found" and in the middle-ground would be "a lack of confidence that a link will be found" or "a lack of confidence that a link will not be found". One has a reasonable certainty, the other does not have reasonable certainty.

Let me better emphasize my position on the issue to help you better understand the difference. My position is that there may be a link between the two, and certainly this doctor's hypothesis sounds plausible. Unfortunately due to the VERY complex nature of microbiology and cellular genetics it's extremely difficult to adequately control all variables in order to PROVE a link. Therefore I'm not confident that a definitive link will be found, I'm hopeful it will be found (a link to what causes autism, not necessarily a vaccine related link), but not confident. Maybe it's semantics to you, I see a clear difference.

That being said, none of this can change the fact that there could be a link and that we just haven't found it yet. Confidence or lack there-of doesn't change a thing. If we never find a link that also doesn't mean there IS NOT a link, it merely means we can't find the link...


The point is still valid. A scientist, that had reason to believe things were NOT as the current "general consensus" held based upon scientific reasons was ridiculed and 'exiled' because he went against the grain. The people that ridiculed and exiled him were only using what they knew at present to discredit his scientific theory and/or hypothesis. It wasn't until science and technology advanced further were they proven fools. What makes you believe this isn't a repeat of said events? The general consensus of scientists say there is no link, even if their studies are 100% true they are only using what is known to them TODAY, at present. Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to say, "today's evidence says this, so it must be true and anybody that feels otherwise is a fool"? Certainly you don't believe that we're at the end of discovery and there is nothing left for humans to discover do you?

This bothers me a bit. To simplify, if you symbolize 'a link will be found' as L, and 'a link will not be found' as notL (this computer lacks the ability to use the appropriate symbol, sorry) then I would think 'a lack of confidence' in L would be asserting notL, and 'confidence' in notL would be asserting notL. Thus it seems you are asserting that notL =/= notL which is specious by inspection

 

[BugI02]

I'm not. Did you read the article? She's discussing the use of aborted fetal cell lines, which are used in a small percentage of vaccines. That specific cross section of vaccines would need to be studied with proper control groups. This is not the same old 'vaccines cause autism' discussion. This is new territory.

Steveh, the woman's paper linked in the OP was published hagiographically - she paid someone for the priviledge. The meaning of 'peer-reviewed' when I use it is that scientists on both sides of the assertion find it compelling enough to either attempt to replicate the results or refute them and then the results of this further experimentation colors the acceptance or rejection of the original paper. The individual I linked to upthread who refuted her work, while not pleasant, is a noted and published clinician whose own work is peer reviewed and has been cited numerous times in other work - a pretty good indication of consensus. The 'being skeptical of postulates presented as fact' thing works both ways. The good Dr received a harsh reception on INGO because her evidence is far from compelling, especially since her methodology is statistical and not experimental.

 

[BugI02]

Going to sleep now

 

[steveh_131]

The woman's paper wasn't linked in the OP. The OP linked an interview. Therefore, I am fairly certain that the reception on INGO had nothing to do with the place that she published her paper which I didn't link until the discussion was well underway.

 

[Alpo]

But is it peer reviewed research?

I carefully reviewed what the Dr. Thompson says. He does not say what you think he says.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/william-w-thompson/