Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[MAC33]

Never once said i did. They are your words,a failed attempt at discrediting the info I have put forward.

 

The female paediatrician testified in the video that i posted that she saw 3 babies die shortly after receiving vaccines.

 

Hey,she could be telling lies,but somehow i think its the other side who are telling the porky pies.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312254-Learning-about-vaccine-dangers-the-hard-way

Edited February 15, 2016 by MAC33

[unbeliever]

Never once said i did. They are your words,a failed attempt at discrediting the info I have put forward.

 

The female paediatrician testified in the video that i posted that she saw 3 babies die shortly after receiving vaccines.

 

Hey,she could be telling lies,but somehow i think its the other side who are telling the porky pies.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312254-Learning-about-vaccine-dangers-the-hard-way

 

 

Once again, you attempt to counter large, blind, controlled studies. Studies which have proper statistics and analysis and are frequently conducted double-blind. With random anecdotes.

You clearly have zero understanding of statistics or probability. Nor do you seem to understand the need to remove various natural biases in the collection and evaluation of evidence.

 

Cite a decent size study carried out using the scientific method which supports your case.

[Obelix]

Never once said i did. They are your words,a failed attempt at discrediting the info I have put forward.

 

The female paediatrician testified in the video that i posted that she saw 3 babies die shortly after receiving vaccines.

 

Hey,she could be telling lies,but somehow i think its the other side who are telling the porky pies.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312254-Learning-about-vaccine-dangers-the-hard-way

 

You've offerend an anecdote to counteract large repeated double blind studies.

 

You've no evidence at all.

 

You want lots of babies to catch fatal diseases because you don't understand vaccines.

 

Why do you want to kill babies?

[RootsBooster]

Never once said i did. They are your words,a failed attempt at discrediting the info I have put forward.

 

The female paediatrician testified in the video that i posted that she saw 3 babies die shortly after receiving vaccines.

 

Hey,she could be telling lies,but somehow i think its the other side who are telling the porky pies.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312254-Learning-about-vaccine-dangers-the-hard-way

 

may be of use to you.

After the intro skip to 1:38

[MAC33]

Few follow up studies are done.....I wonder why?

 

Then you can pick a study that suits your belief.

 

http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/science/studies-comparing-vaccinated-to-unvaccinated-populations/

 

No,I prefer to listen to the parents. They know better than any big-pharma backed 'studies'.

 

The symptoms of retardation happen AFTER vaccination......in answer to that clip.

Edited February 15, 2016 by MAC33

[Guest]

...No,I prefer to listen to the parents. They know better than any big-pharma backed 'studies'.

If I'd known all it takes to gain a thorough understanding of scientific method, statistics and immunology is to push out a sprog, I wouldn't have wasted all those years at university. Oh, wait a minute...

[unbeliever]

Few follow up studies are done.....I wonder why?

 

Then you can pick a study that suits your belief.

 

http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/science/studies-comparing-vaccinated-to-unvaccinated-populations/

 

No,I prefer to listen to the parents. They know better than any big-pharma backed 'studies'.

 

The symptoms of retardation happen AFTER vaccination......in answer to that clip.

 

In this day and age. With all that science has brought us. To find somebody who can read and write, but rejects the scientific method and writes it (studies) in quotes as if that invalidates it somehow is rather depressing.

 

I can't tell whether you genuinely don't understand the scientific method, or you're just following the standard logical fallacy of starting from the conclusion and then hunting around for evidence to support it.

Of course there babies who got sick not long after being vaccinated. There will also be babies who got sick just after putting on a hat. But the "hat's cause autism meme" has not polluted the collective consciousness so nobody runs with that hypothesis.

 

What you have presented are reasons to investigate. They're not really evidence in of themselves, but they do justify investigation. Guess what? They did the investigations, multiple times, and it's not the MMR jab. Correlation is not causation.

 

Stop wasting time, and lives on a disproven hypothesis. It's irresponsible and dangerous. There may still be something in the modern world, or even modern medicine causing an increase in autism. If so, perhaps it can be identified. But it's not the damn MMR jab.

Edited February 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

In this day and age. With all that science has brought us. To find somebody who can read and write, but rejects the scientific method and writes it (studies) in quotes as if that invalidates it somehow is rather depressing.

 

I can't tell whether you genuinely don't understand the scientific method, or you're just following the standard logical fallacy of starting from the conclusion and then hunting around for evidence to support it.

Of course there babies who got sick not long after being vaccinated. There will also be babies who got sick just after putting on a hat. But the "hat's cause autism meme" has not polluted the collective consciousness so nobody runs with that hypothesis.

 

What you have presented are reasons to investigate. They're not really evidence in of themselves, but they do justify investigation. Guess what? They did the investigations, multiple times, and it's not the MMR jab. Correlation is not causation.

 

Stop wasting time, and lives on a disproven hypothesis. It's irresponsible and dangerous. There may still be something in the modern world, or even modern medicine causing an increase in autism. If so, perhaps it can be identified. But it's not the damn MMR jab.

 

Hats cause autism? That's it, my kid ain't wearing no hat. I'd rather her ears got frostbite and fell off.

[onewheeldave]

In this day and age. With all that science has brought us. To find somebody who can read and write, but rejects the scientific method and writes it (studies) in quotes as if that invalidates it somehow is rather depressing.

 

 

At no point has he criticized scientific method- he's criticized the corruption evident throughout the medical study system.

 

And rightly so- what a society takes as 'scientific truth' should not be influenced by interests with cash (pharmaceutical companies, food companies etc).

[unbeliever]

At no point has he criticized scientific method- he's criticized the corruption evident throughout the medical study system.

 

And rightly so- what a society takes as 'scientific truth' should not be influenced by interests with cash (pharmaceutical companies, food companies etc).

 

There is no scientific truth. There is only scientific evidence with high but finite confidence.

Where is this evidence of corruption throughout the medical study system?