Pro Vax or Anti Vax

"

de99ial wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

(...)

So You are claiming that nausea and rest of those effects cannot be caused by ass fucking? And there are no such situations that ass fucking can cause those effects?

Well not for me, anyways, I quite like a good buggering. With any luck I'll have someone over later today to assist me with that very problem. It's not impossible, it's just extremely unlikely. It's biologically implausible. It'd be like a butterfly causing a five-inch-diameter puncture wound.

So You are claiming that in this case your personal experience has more value to You than any actuall data gathered on this subject?

"

de99ial wrote:

So You are claiming that in this case your personal experience has more value to You than any actuall data gathered on this subject?

I am claiming exactly the opposite. My personal experience would seem to indicate that being fucked in the ass made me feel sick. However, it would be foolish of me to jump from "these two things happened one after the other" to "therefore one caused the other", because there's really no plausible mechanism for one to cause the other.

Just like with vaccines.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I don't believe they're putting poison into vaccines, like some of the conspiracy theorists claim. Medical professionals vaccinate their own kids. Lets assume a hypothetical here, and they're putting really bad shit into vaccines, doctors in large masses would holding off getting vaccines for their own kids, and telling friends/family members/patients not to get them either. I don't see this happening.

If this was real, it would be like the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of humanity with the entire medical community being in on it. If there was a sizeable portion of the medical community speaking out against this, say 15-20%, that would definitely raise some red flags with me. But I don't think it's even 0.1%.

FYI, my parents held off vaccinating me until when I was like 4 years old. But they vaccinated my brother as an infant.....and he's autistic. You're supposed to believe me because I'm making these claims on the internet. Conspiracy tards stick within their own little cliques and reassure themselves with statements like the above.

The implied word in your first sentence is "deliberately." And, yes, the odds that they're deliberately doing such a thing is astronomically low. Like "johnKeys luck actually exists" low.

If there is any shred of truth to the popular autism claim, it would be through neglect and ignorance. I think there's a strong incentive for studies funded by the industry to skip over problems they don't think exist because they're not intentionally causing them. There's no need to get a whole community on board for some massive conspiracy in a neglect case.

Overall, the safety of vaccines depends upon a critical relationship between the manufacturers and watchdog groups such as government regulatory agencies and the media. I worry sometimes that the relationship seems a little too chummy.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

de99ial wrote:

So You are claiming that in this case your personal experience has more value to You than any actuall data gathered on this subject?

I am claiming exactly the opposite. My personal experience would seem to indicate that being fucked in the ass made me feel sick. However, it would be foolish of me to jump from "these two things happened one after the other" to "therefore one caused the other", because there's really no plausible mechanism for one to cause the other.

Just like with vaccines.

So if data supports your point of view then it is classified as "Science" but if data does not supports your point of view then you disregard is as "non scientific"?

"

If there is any shred of truth to the popular autism claim, it would be through neglect and ignorance. I think there's a strong incentive for studies funded by the industry to skip over problems they don't think exist because they're not intentionally causing them. There's no need to get a whole community on board for some massive conspiracy in a neglect case.

Exackly my point. There is more than enought data about this aspect - relation between vacs and autism - but many people just disregard it because "it is not posiible". Well... it is possible due to the substances that modern vact are made of. Just read the data about it and see what for many of those substances are safe doses. Compare them with vacs and get that they are designed to childs not adults.

Its like with cell phone radiation - norms are based on adult, soldier model and they have thicker bones and skulls - they are not made for childs heads. And even if its mentioned there is just a mass of ignorance and discarding that data without considering it.

Good scientist veryfie all hypothesis without prejudice that "its just bollocks". And in BigPharma there are no real scientist - there are engineere that design new drugs that are forced oto population. Tehere is more just one case proving that such practice is in motion - for example check history of psychotropic drugs.

"

de99ial wrote:

So if data supports your point of view then it is classified as "Science" but if data does not supports your point of view then you disregard is as "non scientific"?

Clearly I'm not communicating effectively here, as you constantly misunderstand what I'm saying. Can anyone who did get what I mean help me out here?

"

Exackly my point. There is more than enought data about this aspect - relation between vacs and autism - but many people just disregard it because "it is not posiible". Well... it is possible due to the substances that modern vact are made of. Just read the data about it and see what for many of those substances are safe doses. Compare them with vacs and get that they are designed to childs not adults.

No. Just about every part of this is wrong. We have a ton of data. Analyzing this data is what led us to the conclusion that vaccines don't cause autism in the first place!

When we measure autism rates between people who have been vaccinated and those who haven't, we find no difference in the rates.
When we measure autism rates between those who got the full vaccine schedule and those who did not, we find no difference in the rates.
We checked autism rates before and after we removed the substance many antivaxxers believed responsible for autism, and found that after removing it, autism rates didn't go down.

In fact, if you just go by the raw data, at least one study would seem to imply that thimerosal prevents autism, as the autism rate went up significantly after it was removed - except that that surface-level analysis is hopelessly naive, almost as naive as the surface-level analysis that leads parents to believe that because their child got a vaccine, and then started displaying signs of autism, that therefore vaccines caused autism.

"

Good scientist veryfie all hypothesis without prejudice that "its just bollocks".

You're right! We do! And back in the 90s, this was still very much an open question. Wakefield's studies offered some weak evidence that vaccines could cause autism, and even presented a theoretical pathway for how that might work. But since then, we've studied the issue exhaustively. There have been literally hundreds of studies examining the various aspects of this. Wakefield's work was first proven anomalous. Then it was proven fraudulent. And the more data we collect, the more clear it becomes that the autism-vaccine hypothesis is simply not accurate.

"

And in BigPharma there are no real scientist

Of course. And I'm guessing that in the CDC, NHS, and virtually every other major health organization in the world, the scientists are controlled by big pharma, and therefore also don't count.

The problem with autism is that we really dont understand where it comes. And if we dont know causes for it we cannot exclude any factor.

Truth is that autism cases skyroketed during last 20 years and noone knows why.

Based on this clamimng that getting some dangerous substances into the bloodstream directly WONT cause it is just wishful thinking.

In short: "We dont know what causes this but we are sure that it is not caused by .....(in dots put anything U want)".

Thats just wishfull thinking. We would like to be like this.

"

de99ial wrote:

Truth is that autism cases skyroketed during last 20 years and noone knows why.

My son has severe autism. So I can explain to you at least some of that "why," based off my own personal experience.

Autism was traditionally seen as a severe condition. However, the old-school stoic mentality of "keeping" one's child normal has given way to more of a victimhood mentality of getting diagnoses and throwing pharmaceuticals at the "problem." This attitude has shaped the definition of autism itself: in 2013, the diagnostic criterion for autism was expanded to include previously separate conditions such as the much less severe Asperger syndrome.

In this way, saying autism has dramatically increased is somewhat like saying ADHD has dramatically increased. Some of this may be environmental. However, a significant portion is cultural, causing more minor symptoms of the condition to be taken more seriously, leading to more diagnoses.

I don't want to generalize to everyone, as the majority of the autism community is solid, but the community is nevertheless dominated by the kind of bleeding heart liberal that tolerates the occasional poser. And I hate posers. I look at some of these kids, acting all normal, and I just look at their parents and

"

de99ial wrote:

The problem with autism is that we really dont understand where it comes. And if we dont know causes for it we cannot exclude any factor.

Truth is that autism cases skyroketed during last 20 years and noone knows why.

Here's a hint: autism spectrum disorder was not actually categorized as a distinct disorder before the 90s. Before then, we had "autism", but it was both very narrow and not well-defined. It turns out that the modern understanding of autism is probably younger than you are. The reason we've had such a "drastic increase" is because we've gotten substantially better at spotting it, and because certain things we didn't realize were part of ASD before (like Aspergers syndrome) were previously miscategorized.

"

Based on this clamimng that getting some dangerous substances into the bloodstream directly WONT cause it is just wishful thinking.

In short: "We dont know what causes this but we are sure that it is not caused by .....(in dots put anything U want)".

Come on, this is just stupid. Even if we assume that there is a massive increase in autism, something which is questionable in its own right, we don't get to then assume that any given thing causes it, simply because it's "dangerous"* and "inserted into the bloodstream directly".

But it's not even that. It's not even "We don't know what the cause is, therefore antivaxxers have no ground to stand on". That, in and of itself, should be enough to take a step back and demand more testing. But actually, we've tested it extensively! There is no correlation between vaccine uptake and autism. None whatsoever. The only thing rejecting vaccines correlates with is more infectious diseases. And even beyond that, there's non-trivial evidence indicating that autism may start in the womb. What you're demanding makes no sense given the data we have.


*The dose makes the poison, and nothing in vaccines are at all dangerous at the doses administered.

@Scrotie: yes, "bleeding hearts", that's a great way to describe the increasing understanding of mental disorders and how broad they can be. Nice. Just because your child has a more severe form of autism does not mean that asperger's is not also on the autism spectrum. It is. It's a far more mild form of autism, but there are clear similarities in how the disorder functions and how to address it. And the better we get at diagnosing these cases, even cases which are "high-functioning" or don't lead to significant harm, the better we can do things like tailor schooling or therapy to help these kids.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

de99ial wrote:

The problem with autism is that we really dont understand where it comes. And if we dont know causes for it we cannot exclude any factor.

Truth is that autism cases skyroketed during last 20 years and noone knows why.

Here's a hint: autism spectrum disorder was not actually categorized as a distinct disorder before the 90s. Before then, we had "autism", but it was both very narrow and not well-defined. It turns out that the modern understanding of autism is probably younger than you are. The reason we've had such a "drastic increase" is because we've gotten substantially better at spotting it, and because certain things we didn't realize were part of ASD before (like Aspergers syndrome) were previously miscategorized.

I find it humorous that we were working on essentially the same replies at the same time, except you see a social good where I see a social degradation.

"Better at spotting it." Ha! "Miscategorized." Ha ha!