Goodbye, Green Party
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Do you really want to me to refute a copy/paste list of links that you dumped on me without reading? Outrageous. Specially that this isn't my area of expertise (but I'm sure it's yours given your apparently extensive research)
But here's a refutation of the first study:
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/20/dumpster-diving-in-the-vaers-database-again/
Here's an excerpt:
A quick Google search shows that most of the other links you've posted have been responded to.
Also, I would like for you to go thru this link that you provided:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jYsdHZuRhCVXZUbFFlUzdfNGM/edit?pli=1
And tell how it's related to the subject. It's practically a book, and not a paper. And I'd like for you to go through it, and tell me what you think. But I know you won't. Also, I'd like to point out that some of the links you gave are not scientific papers at all, but anti-vaxxer wackos.
Here's a list of papers that show the ones you linked are unreliable:
https://justthevax.blogspot.com/2014/03/75-studies-that-show-no-link-between.html
Keep in mind this is a fraction of the total number of papers that show vaccines are safe. What matters is that the scientific community has not found any convincing evidence that a link between vaccines and autism exists. Anyone can cherry pick papers to show what they want them to show, specially in the health sciences. But the evidence, as the medical community at large understands it, does not point to a connection between the two. Additionally, no known mechanisms exists. Most of those papers rely on unscientific jargon like "heavy metal detoxification" and such.
The scientific community sounds like a very broad concept to me. What exactly determines that a hypothesis is shared by the "scientific community" in general? Also, how do you assume that I haven't read all the links that I gave you? Actually I didn't, I've gone through a few because I don't have the time to read them all entirely, I just find it interesting that you would make that assumption. I was just throwing it out there as evidence of some people thinking that some vaccines are linked to autism. Which "experts" and scientists are right and which are wrong?
The first link you sent me was written by Dr. David Gorski, AKA "Orac". Here's a blog that I found about this individual:
https://unmaskingorac.blogspot.com/
Your links against mine. Feel free to look for a link that exposes https://unmaskingorac.blogspot.com/
I say we just settle this on August 13 with a game of poker
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
There is also a tight correlation between the rising amount of sports teams and cancer.
In the 1930's there were a lot less cancer diagnosis and also a lot less professional sports teams.
Explain that!
The scientific community sounds like a very broad concept to me. What exactly determines that a hypothesis is shared by the "scientific community" in general? Also, how do you assume that I haven't read all the links that I gave you? Actually I didn't, I've gone through a few because I don't have the time to read them all entirely, I just find it interesting that you would make that assumption. I was just throwing it out there as evidence of some people thinking that some vaccines are linked to autism. Which "experts" and scientists are right and which are wrong?
The first link you sent me was written by Dr. David Gorski, AKA "Orac". Here's a blog that I found about this individual:
https://unmaskingorac.blogspot.com/
Your links against mine. Feel free to look for a link that exposes https://unmaskingorac.blogspot.com/
I say we just settle this on August 13 with a game of poker
I assumed you haven't read the links because of course you haven't. Who are we kidding here? You don't have the knowledge to evaluate such articles, since you're not an immunologist, or a health scientist of any kind. You came up with the conclusion that a link exists beforehand, then you Googled a few links to dump on me.
Also, I couldn't care less about the character of David Gorski, or his name calling. The link shows the study you provided is fundamentally wrong. It makes claims that are factually incorrect, like the claim of the presence of aluminum in MMR (false). That's the issue with these papers. Not that some scientists dicks are bigger than others, but that scientists point out a plethora of factual and theoretical problems with those papers.
Like I said. I'm not a health scientist. I can't dedicate my life to scouring the literature in order to make a fully-informed opinion on the subject. What I can do, is judge the reliability of studies. So I look at what the community has to say about it. And the community says that the few studies that show a link between vaccines are autism are factually and theoretically lacking. To top it off, hundreds, maybe thousands, of papers that try to duplicate the findings in a more scientifically rigorous way fail to do so.
The scientific understanding of autism has expanded greatly in the past few decades, and so have the number of people being diagnosed. Given this uptrend, a million cases for correlation can be made. Maybe it's transistors are causing autism. Anyone can make such a ridiculous hypothesis, then make a graph that show a correlation between the two, along with made-up a mechanism nobody has heard of. Case in point is the satirical, and hilarious, joke that shows that climate change is caused by lack of pirates.
You're coming to the conclusion you like, then you try to find studies that kind of support the conclusion. You are not looking at the whole picture to try to come up with the strongest possible conclusion, which is that no link between autism and vaccines have been convincingly demonstrated, let alone "proven". And one further note, I use the word "proven" in quotes because science does not try to prove things. It only confirms them. A hypothesis is made, in this case the connection between vaccinations and autism, and then experiments either confirm or reject the hypothesis. Nothing is ever proven.
I say we just settle this on August 13 with a game of poker
No no. We should discuss globalization during the poker game. I haven't had the chance to get back to you on that, and I fee that it's the kind of conversation that is better in person. I want not only to discuss the economic success of globalization, but its philosophical superiority to isolationism.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
That's right down my aisle, should be fun.
I'm curious to know about your superior thoughts in the matter.
Wrong. In the past there were many more professional sports teams. It waxed an waned. You know, like ABA NBA AFL NFL Harlem Globetrotters.
Anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, pro-CAM. The Unholy Trinity of liberal woo.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/accor...irect-answer-about-vaccines-and-its-terrible/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danth...science-how-jill-stein-lost-my-vote-for-good/
I have been voting Green, but with the Democratic party platform moving left and this popping up, not any more.
A good start would be the various medical and scientific bodies. AMA, NSA of the US, etc. All of the major organizations support vaccination.
Some people think the earth is flat.
The actual experts, the ones who study disease for a living and support immunization at something like the 99% rate.
The best source to discredit unmaskingorac is unmaskingorac.
Scienceblogs is owned by the Seed Media Group, and Orac started out as an independent blogger before Scienceblogs even existed.
Apparently, unmaskingorac is unable to understand that you can have facts and opinions in the same post.
Anyone who actually read Respectful Insolence back in 2012 knows he regularly mentioned (and probably still does) his research, which does indeed use cancer drugs. Nothing was hidden
Having no legimate defense, unmaskingorac resorts to lies and distortions. Why are you quoting them?
Ant vaccines should be a priority! Thanks Obama!